Space Command Is About to Launch!

June 26th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

I thought that perhaps I had tuned into John Oliver or to Saturday Night Live in error, but no doubt about it, there was an unmistakable President Donald Trump speaking before an audience at the National Space Council. He was saying that on his own presidential authority “I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. … We are going to have the Air Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal.”

Before signing Space Policy Directive 3 mandating the change and abruptly departing, Trump went on to explain that

“My administration is reclaiming America’s heritage as the world’s greatest space-faring nation. The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.”

The Air Force, which already has a Space Command, will no doubt object to the new arrangement, preferring instead to roll the expanded responsibilities and money into its already existing framework. Secretary of Defense James Mattis is also reported to be against the expansion, explaining in a speech last year that

“The creation of an independent Space Corps, with the corresponding institutional growth and budget implications, does not address…our nation’s fiscal problems in a responsive manner.”

And Donald Trump will have to get over a couple of bureaucratic hurdles to get his nifty new interstellar command up and running. First of all, it will require an Act of Congress to create a new branch of the military. That might not be difficult to do as the expansion is being packaged as “national security,” which Republicans will support reflexively and Democrats will also get behind not wanting to appear weak before the elections in November. And both parties will also be willing to line up to benefit from the political contributions coming from defense contractors as well as the creation of new military support facilities providing jobs in congressional districts.

And then there is the money, alluded to by Mattis. Start-up funding a new, coequal military branch would mean a huge increase in the defense budget. As long as the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and the treasury can print money without any real backing it is possible to ride the wave, but there are currently significant challenges to the dollars survival in that role. If its supremacy ends, there goes the economy taking the unrestrained government spending with it and sinking the Space Command together with much, much more.

Major defense contractors, all of whom were present to hear Trump’s speech, were immediately seen to be drooling over the prospect of a new cash cow. And at the Pentagon champagne corks were popping at the thought of a couple of hundred new flag officer positions that will have to be invented and filled as well as the full complement of civilians to staff the bureaucracy. And think of the uniforms that will have to be distinct from those used by the other branches of the service, maybe copying those formerly in vogue on the Starship Enterprise or as seen in the movie Starship Troopers.

The reality is that the United States does indeed have a major national security interest in protecting its network of satellites in orbit as well as related infrastructure, but there is still quite a lot in the Trump remarks that is disturbing. Trump is basically saying two things. The first is that he will be weaponizing outer space and the second is that he is doing so because he intends for the United States to become dominant in that domain. It is a complete ass-backwards approach to the problem of potential development of threats coming from beyond the atmosphere. Instead of arming outer space, Washington should be working with other countries that have capabilities in that region to demilitarize exploration and both commercial and government exploitation. Everyone has an interest in not allowing outer space to become the next site for an arms race, though admittedly working with other countries does not appear to be something that the Trump Administration enters into lightly. Or at all.

And Trump should also abandon his insistence that the United States develop “dominance” in space. The use of such language is a red flag that will make any agreement with countries like Russia and China impossible to achieve. It virtually guarantees that there will be a competition among a number of nations to develop and deploy killer satellites employing lasers and other advanced electronic jamming technologies to protect their own outer space infrastructure.

Trump appears to have internalized a viewpoint that sees the United States as surrounded by threats but able to emerge victorious by being hyper-aggressive on all fronts. It is a posture that might unnerve opponents and bring some success in the short term but which ultimately will create a genuine threat as the rest of the world lines up against Washington. That day might be coming if one goes by the reaction to recent U.S. votes in the United Nations and Trump’s behavior at G-7 are anything to go by.

No one in his right mind would allow Trump to dominate outer space based on Washington’s track record of irresponsible leadership since 9/11. It has wrecked the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, killing possibly as many as 4 million Muslims in so doing. It has bullied allies into joining its projects in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while also disparaging foreign governments and entering into trade wars. It has bankrupted itself in all but name, systematically dismantled the rights of its own citizens, and has become a rogue nation by virtually every measure.

And when you have firmly established the principle that might makes right and all the universe is at the disposal of Washington, what comes next? Antarctica and the arctic region are by some accounts rich in natural resources. Will we Americans be seeing an Antarctic Command with a mandate to dominate the polar regions to enhance national security? Stay tuned.

*

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].

Dr. Giraldi is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

How Long Can the Federal Reserve Stave Off the Inevitable?

June 26th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

When are America’s global corporations and Wall Street going to sit down with President Trump and explain to him that his trade war is not with China but with them.  The biggest chunk of America’s trade deficit with China is the offshored production of America’s global corporations. When the corporations bring the products that they produce in China to the US consumer market, the products are classified as imports from China.  

Six years ago when I was writing The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I concluded on the evidence that half of US imports from China consist of the offshored production of US corporations.  Offshoring is a substantial benefit to US corporations because of much lower labor and compliance costs. Profits, executive bonuses, and shareholders’ capital gains receive a large boost from offshoring.  The costs of these benefits for a few fall on the many—the former American employees who formerly had a middle class income and expectations for their children.

In my book, I cited evidence that during the first decade of the 21st century “the US lost 54,621 factories, and manufacturing employment fell by 5 million employees.  Over the decade, the number of larger factories (those employing 1,000 or more employees) declined by 40 percent. US factories employing 500-1,000 workers declined by 44 percent; those employing between 250-500 workers declined by 37 percent, and those employing between 100-250 workers shrunk by 30 percent. These losses are net of new start-ups.  Not all the losses are due to offshoring.  Some are the result of business failures” (p. 100).

In other words, to put it in the most simple and clear terms, millions of Americans lost their middle class jobs not because China played unfairly, but because American corporations betrayed the American people and exported their jobs.  “Making America great again” means dealing with these corporations, not with China.  When Trump learns this, assuming anyone will tell him, will he back off China and take on the American global corporations?

The loss of middle class jobs has had a dire effect on the hopes and expectations of Americans, on the American economy, on the finances of cities and states and, thereby, on their ability to meet pension obligations and provide public services, and on the tax base for Social Security and Medicare, thus threatening these important elements of the American consensus.  In short, the greedy corporate elite have benefitted themselves at enormous cost to the American people and to the economic and social stability of the United States.

The job loss from offshoring also has had a huge and dire impact on Federal Reserve policy.  With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit for the missing growth in consumer income in order to maintain aggregate consumer demand. Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied on an increase in consumer debt to fuel the economy.

The credit expansion and consequent rise in real estate prices, together with the deregulation of the banking system, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, produced the real estate bubble and the fraud and mortgage-backed derivatives that gave us the 2007-08 financial crash.

The Federal Reserve responded to the crash not by bailing out consumer debt but by bailing out the debt of its only constituency—the big banks.  The Federal Reserve let little banks fail and be bought up by the big ones, thus further increasing financial concentration. The multi-trillion dollar increase in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet was entirely for the benefit of a handful of large banks.  Never before in history had an agency of the US government acted so decisively in behalf only of the ownership class.

The way the Federal Reserve saved the irresponsible large banks, which should have failed and have been broken up, was to raise the prices of troubled assets on the banks’ books by lowering interest rates.  To be clear, interest rates and bond prices move in opposite directions. When interest rates are lowered by the Federal Reserve, which it achieves by purchasing debt instruments, the prices of bonds rise. As the various debt risks move together, lower interest rates raise the prices of all debt instruments, even troubled ones. Raising the prices of debt instruments produced solvent balance sheets for the big banks.

To achieve its aim, the Federal Reserve had to lower the interest rates to zero, which even the low reported inflation reduced to negative interest rates.  These low rates had disastrous consequences.  On the one hand low interest rates caused all sorts of speculations.  On the other low interest rates deprived retires of interest income on their retirement savings, forcing them to draw down capital, thus reducing accumulated wealth among the 90 percent.  The under-reported inflation rate also denied retirees Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, forcing them to spend retirement capital.  

The low interest rates also encouraged corporate boards to borrow money in order to buy back the corporation’s stock, thus raising its price and, thereby, the bonuses and stock options of executives and board members and the capital gains of shareholders.  In other words, corporations indebted themselves for the short-term benefit of executives and owners. Companies that refused to participate in this scam were threatened by Wall Street with takeovers.

Consequently today the combination of offshoring and Federal Reserve policy has left us a situation in which every aspect of the economy is indebted—consumers, government at all levels, and businesses.  A recent Federal Reserve study concluded that Americans are so indebted and so poor that 41 percent of the American population cannot raise $400 without borrowing from family and friends or selling personal possessions.

A country whose population is this indebted has no consumer market. Without a consumer market there is no economic growth, other than the false orchestrated figures produced by the US government by under counting the inflation rate.

Without economic growth, consumers, businesses, state, local, and federal governments cannot service their debts and meet their obligations. 

The Federal Reserve has learned that it can keep afloat the Ponzi scheme that is the US economy by printing money with which to support financial asset prices.  The alleged rise in interest rates by the Federal Reserve are not real interest rates rises.  Even the under-reported inflation rate is higher than the interest rate increases, with the result that the real interest rate falls.  If the stock market tries to sell off, before much damage can be done the Federal Reserve steps in and purchases S&P futures, thus driving up stock prices.  

Normally so much money creation by the Federal Reserve, especially in conjunction with such a high debt level of the US government and also state and local governments, consumers, and businesses, would cause a falling US dollar exchange rate.  Why hasn’t this happened?

For three reasons.  One is that the central banks of the other three reserve currencies—the Japanese central bank, the European central bank, and the Bank of England—also print money.  Their Quantitative Easing, which still continues, offsets the dollars created by the Federal Reserve and keeps the US dollar from depreciating.

A second reason is that when suspicion of the dollar’s worth sends up the gold price, the Federal Reserve or its bullion banks short gold futures with naked contracts. This drives down the gold price.  There are numerous columns on my website by myself and Dave Kranzler proving this to be the case.  There is no doubt about it.

The third reason is that money managers, individuals, pension funds, everyone and all the rest had rather make money than not.  Therefore, they go along with the Ponzi scheme.  The people who did not benefit from the Ponzi scheme of the past decade are those who understood it was a Ponzi scheme but did not realize the corruption that has beset the Federal Reserve and the central bank’s ability and willingness to continue to feed the Ponzi scheme. 

As I have explained previously, the Ponzi scheme falls apart when it becomes impossible to continue to support the dollar as burdened as the dollar is by debt levels and abundance of dollars that could be dumped on the exchange markets.  

This is why Washington is determined to retain its hegemony.  It is Washington’s hegemony over Japan, Europe, and the UK that protects the American Ponzi scheme.  The moment one of these central banks ceases to support the dollar, the others would follow, and the Ponzi scheme would unravel.  If the prices of US debt and stocks were reduced to their real values, the United States would no longer have a place in the ranks of world powers.

The implication is that war, and not economic reform, is America’s most likely future.

In a subsequent column I hope to explain why neither US political party has the awareness and capability to deal with real problems.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

At first glance, all appears calm in this southern Syrian city where protests first broke out seven years ago. Residents mill around shops in preparation for the evening Iftar meal when they break their daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

But the tension is nonetheless palpable in this now government-controlled city. A few weeks ago, Russian-brokered reconciliation talks in southern Syria fell apart when Western-backed militants rejected a negotiated peace.

Whether there will now be a full-on battle for the south or not, visits last week to Syria’s three southern governorates, Daraa, Quneitra, and Suweida, reveal a startling possibility: al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise—the Nusra Front—appears to be deeply entrenched alongside these U.S.-backed militants in key, strategic towns and villages scattered throughout the south.

U.S. media and think tanks obfuscate this fact by referring to all opposition fighters as “rebels” or “moderates.” Take a look at their maps and you only see three colors: red for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, green for opposition forces, black for ISIS.

So then, where is the Nusra Front, long considered by Western pundits to be one of the most potent fighting forces against the SAA? Have they simply—and conveniently—been erased from the Syrian battle map?

Discussions with Syrian military experts, analysts, and opposition fighters during my trip revealed that Nusra is alive and kicking in the southern battlefields. The map below specifically identifies areas in the south controlled by Nusra, but there are many more locations that do not appear where Nusra is present and shares power with other militants.

Despite its U.S. and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra has been openly fighting alongside the “Southern Front,” a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded by a U.S.-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC).

Specifics about the MOC aren’t easy to come by, but sources inside Syria—both opposition fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present)—suggest the command center consists of the U.S., UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states.

They say the MOC supplies funds, weapons, salaries, intel, and training to the 54 militias, many of which consist of a mere 200 or so fighters that are further broken down into smaller groups, some only a few dozen strong.

SAA General Ahmad al-Issa, a commander for the frontline in Daraa, says the MOC is a U.S.-led operation that controls the movements of Southern Front “terrorists” and is highly influenced by Israel’s strategic goals in the south of Syria—one of which is to seize control of its bordering areas to create a “buffer” inside Syrian territories.

How does he know this? Issa says his information comes from a cross-section of sources, including reconciled/captured militants and intel from the MOC itself. The general cites MOC’s own rulebook for militants as an example of its Israel-centricity:

“One, never threaten or approach any Israeli border in any way. Two, protect the borders with (Israeli-occupied) Golan so no one can enter Israel.”

To illustrate the MOC’s control over southern militants, Issa cites further regulations:

“three, never take any military action before clearing with MOC first. Four, if the MOC asks groups to attack or stop, they must do so.”

What happens if these rules are not upheld?

“They will get their salaries cut,” says Issa.

The armed opposition groups supported by the MOC are mostly affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), itself an ill-defined, highly fungible group of militants who have changed names and affiliations with frequency during the Syrian conflict.

Over the course of the war, the FSA has fought alongside the Nusra Front and ISIS—some have even joined them. Today, despite efforts to whitewash the FSA and Southern Front as “non-sectarian” and non-extremist, factions like the Yarmouk Army, Mu’tazz Billah Brigade, Salah al-Din Division, Fajr al-Islam Brigade, Fallujah al-Houran Brigade, the Bunyan al-Marsous grouping, Saifollah al-Masloul Brigade, and others are currently occupying keys areas in Daraa in cooperation with the Nusra Front.

None of this is news to American policymakers. Even before the MOC was established in February 2014, Nusra militants were fronting vital military maneuvers for the FSA. As one Daraa opposition activist explains:

“The FSA and al-Nusra join together for operations but they have an agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don’t want to frighten Jordan or the West…. Operations that were really carried out by al-Nusra are publicly presented by the FSA as their own.”

Efforts to conceal the depth of cooperation between Nusra and the FSA go right to the top. Says one FSA commander in Daraa:

“In many battles, al-Nusra takes part, but we don’t tell the (MOC) operations room about it.”

It’s highly doubtful that the U.S. military remains unaware of this. The Americans operate on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” basis with regard to FSA-Nusra cooperation. In a 2015 interview with this reporter, CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why Pentagon-vetted fighters’ weapons were showing up in Nusra hands. Raines responded:

We don’t ‘command and control’ these forces—we only ‘train and enable’ them. Who they say they’re allying with, that’s their business.”

In practice, the U.S. doesn’t appear to mind the Nusra affiliation—regardless of the fact that the group is a terror organization—as long as the job gets done.

U.S. arms have been seen in Nusra’s possession for many years now, including highly valued TOW missiles, which were game-changing weapons in the Syrian military theater. When American weapons end up in al-Qaeda hands during the first or second year of a conflict, one assumes simple errors in judgment. When the problem persists after seven years, however, it starts to look like there’s a policy in place to look the other way.

It’s also not difficult to grasp why U.S. maps patently ignore evidence of Nusra embedded among U.S.-supported militias. The group, after all, is exempt from ceasefires, viewed as a fair target for military strikes at all times.

In December 2015, UN Security Council Resolution 2254 called for “Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the resolution makes clear that ceasefires “will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities.”

This essentially means that the Syrian army and its allies can tear apart any areas in the south of Syria where Nusra fighters—and “entities associated” with it—are based. In effect, international law provides a free hand for a Syrian military assault against U.S.-backed militias co-located with Nusra, and undermines the ability of their foreign sponsors to take retaliatory measures.

That’s why the Nusra Front doesn’t show up on U.S. maps.

In an interview last week, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad blamed the sudden breakdown of southern reconciliation efforts on

“Israeli and American interference,” which he says “put pressure on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution.”

Today, the Israeli border area with Syria is dotted with Nusra and ISIS encampments, which Israel clearly prefers over the Syrian army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies. The Wall Street Journal even reported last year that Israel was secretly providing funding for salaries, food, fuel, and munitions to militants across its border.

In early June, two former Islamist FSA members (one of them also a former Nusra fighter) in Beit Jinn—a strategic area bordering Syria, Lebanon, and Israel—told me that Israel had been paying their militia’s salaries for a year before a reconciliation deal was struck with the Syrian government.

“Every month Israel would send us $200,000 to keep fighting,” one revealed. “Our leaders were following the outside countries. We were supported by MOC, they kept supporting us till the last minute,” he said.

Earlier that day, in the village of Hadar in the Syrian Golan, members of the Druze community described a bloody Nusra attack last November that killed 17:

“All the people here saw how Israel helped Nusra terrorists that day. They covered them with live fire from the hilltops to help Nusra take over Hadar. And at the end of the fights, Israel takes in the injured Nusra fighters and provides them with medical services,” says Marwan Tawil, a local English teacher.

“The ceasefire line (Syrian-Israeli border) is 65 kilometers between here to Jordan, and only this area is under the control of the SAA,” explains Hadar’s mayor. “Sixty kilometers is with Nusra and Israel and only the other five are under the SAA.”

Israel is so heavily vested in keeping Syria and its allies away from its borders, it has actively bolstered al-Qaeda and other extremists in Syria’s southern theater. As Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon famously explained in 2016,

“In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State.”

To justify their interventions in the battle ahead, the U.S. and Israel claim that Iranian and Hezbollah forces are present in the south, yet on the ground in Daraa and Quneitra, there is no visible sight of either.

Multiple sources confirm this in Daraa, and insist that that there are only a handful of Hezbollah advisors—not fighters—in the entire governorate.

So why the spin? “This is a public diplomacy effort to make the West look like they’ve forced Iran and Hezbollah out of the south,” explains General Issa.

The U.S., Israel, and their allies cannot win this southern fight. They can only prolong the insecurity for a while before the SAA decides to launch a military campaign against the 54-plus-militias-Nusra occupying the south of Syria. The end result is likely to be a negotiated settlement peppered with a few “soft battles” to eject the more hardline militants.

As one SAA soldier on the scene in Daraa tells me: “Fifty-four factions in a small area shows weakness more than it shows strength.” And their cooperation with the Nusra Front just makes the targets on their backs even larger.

*

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

Nicaragua at the Barricades

June 26th, 2018 by Rebecca Gordon

On April 19th, university students in Nicaragua’s capital, Managua, exploded onto the streets. Their initial demand? A more effective government response to wildfires burning out of control in the country’s most precious repository of biodiversity.

Soon, a social wildfire took hold in Managua and then spread across the country. Thousands of Nicaraguans added a second demand to the first: for President Daniel Ortega to revoke his recent changes to the country’s social security law, which had simultaneously raised social security taxes (upsetting private enterprise) and cut benefits to seniors (angering many ordinary people). In the ensuing clashes, close to 200 Nicaraguans have died, hundreds have been arrested, and thousands have been injured, almost all at the hands of anti-riot police, unidentified snipers, or gangs of pro-government thugs on motorcycles. Today, this movement of auto-convocados (self-conveners) articulates two key demands: justice and democracy — justice for those who have died at the government’s hand and a return to democratic governance for Nicaragua.

Why should we care? In a world where the U.S. president proclaims his desire to see his people “sit up and pay attention” to him the way North Koreans do for Kim Jong-Un; where his attorney general tore children from their parents’ arms; where the United States plans to initiate the militarization of space (despite our endorsement of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which outlaws exactly that) — in such a world, why should people care what happens in an impoverished Central American nation thousands of miles from the centers of power?

Because there was a time when Nicaragua’s imaginative, idiosyncratic revolution offered the world an example of how a people might shuck off the bonds of U.S. dominance and try to build a democratic country devoted to human well-being. I know, because I saw a little of that example during the six months I spent in Nicaragua’s war zones in 1984, working with an organization called Witness for Peace. My job there was to report on the U.S.-backed counterrevolutionary (Contra) military campaign to overthrow the Sandinista government, which had replaced a vicious dictator in 1979.  The Contras employed an intentional terrorist strategy of torture, kidnapping, and murder, targeting civilians in their homes and fields and workers in rural schools and clinics.

Some (Abbreviated) History

Nicaragua sits dead center on any map of the Americas and, in the 1980s, small as it was, it also occupied the center of the political imaginations of many people. In that country lay the hopes of millions living beyond its borders, hopes that a people really could become the protagonists of their own nation’s story or, in the words of the Sandinista anthem, “dueño de su historia, arquitecto de su liberación” — directors of their own history, architects of their own liberation.

Image result for Anastasio Somoza Debayle

Before the fall of its Washington-supported dictator, Anastasio Somoza Debayle (image on the right), in 1979, very few people outside Central America had given a thought to Nicaragua. It was the poorest, most illiterate nation in the region. Indeed, Somoza is reported to have said, “I don’t need educated people. I need oxen!” (Or, as our own president put it during his 2016 campaign, “I love the poorly educated!”) In the years following the dictator’s ouster, Nicaragua became a symbol of hope for people on the left globally.

Somoza had treated Nicaragua like his own private hacienda, leasing out its hillsides for clear-cutting to U.S. and Canadian lumber companies and, along with an oligarchic class of landowners and businessmen, squeezing every dollar out of the people he ruled. He maintained his power thanks to a regime of intimidation, torture, and assassination. His National Guard functioned like a private army (and would eventually form the nucleus of the Contras after many of its members fled to neighboring Honduras when the Sandinistas came to power).

In 1979, however, after a year-long insurrection fought in the mountainous areas of the country by a guerrilla force armed with AK-47s and in the cities by ordinary citizens wielding homemade bombs thrown from behind barricades, the Somoza regime collapsed. By the time he fled, after a brutal final round of aerial bombardment, no sector of the country backed him. Erstwhile allies like the big landowners, private industry, and the Catholic Church, along with the press of all stripes, had all turned on him. So had the majority of Nicaraguans, the rural campesinos (a word inadequately translated as “peasants”), and the country’s tiny urban working class. In the end, even his patrons in Washington abandoned Somoza as a hopeless cause.

Image result for Augusto César Sandino

A group called the Frente Sandinista (the Sandinista National Liberation Front, or FSLN) stepped into the vacuum he left. Founded in 1961, it took its name from Augusto César Sandino (image on the left), a guerrilla leader who had fought against a U.S. occupation of Nicaragua decades earlier. In 1978, despite internal disagreements, the group united around four basic principles of governance: political pluralism; the formation of a mixed economy, including private ownership, state-owned enterprises, and collectives; popular mobilization through a variety of mass organizations; and a foreign policy of nonalignment.

In July 1979, when Somoza resigned and fled the country, the FSLN assumed power with long-established plans to improve the lives of the rural and urban poor. The party established health clinics, promoted free public education, and offered a “canasta básica” (basic food basket) of affordable staple foods, quickly reducing the endemic malnutrition in the country. Through a national vaccination campaign, it eliminated polio in 1981. It also brought in laws that protected poor farmers from losing their land to banks and instituted agrarian reform, transferring land titles to thousands of previously landless campesinos.

In 1980, 90,000 people, two-thirds of them middle-class high school students from the cities, took part in a national literacy campaign. In the process, those young students spent five months living with campesino families, learning about the hardships (and joys) of subsistence farming. In return for such hospitality, those students taught their host families to read. Today, my partner sits on the board of a Nicaraguan development NGO, several of whose organizers began their lives of community engagement as teenage participants in that literacy campaign.

Of course, the Sandinista government was not perfect. Some of its worst policies reflected the country’s endemic racism against indigenous groups and English-speaking Nicaraguans of African descent. Existing conflict between the Sandinistas and Miskito Indians was further exacerbated by the government’s imposition of a military draft in response to the Contra war. Many Miskitos were members of the pacifist Moravian church, but the Sandinistas interpreted their resistance to the draft as complicity with the enemy, and so opened the way for successful CIA infiltration of the group.

The military draft became deeply unpopular throughout the country and its enforcement was sometimes heavy-handed. More than once, I sat on a bus stopped at a Sandinista roadblock, waiting for soldiers to check the papers of all the young men on board to be sure none of them were draft dodgers.

The Sandinistas also created and consolidated government structures, including a presidency and national assembly. When the party swept the 1984 elections with 67% of the vote, and Daniel Ortega became president, no one doubted that the result represented the will of the overwhelming majority of Nicaraguans.

In 1986, the National Constitutional Assembly approved a new constitution, which granted abundant rights to Nicaraguans, including women and LGBT people. One of its articles even called for absolute equality between men and women and the full sharing of housework and childcare. (Let’s pause here to remember that the U.S. Constitution has yet to include any kind of Equal Rights Amendment, let alone an article requiring men to share equally in domestic labor!)

Among the new constitution’s provisions was a six-year fixed term for the presidency.

However, Nicaraguans were not stupid. They knew that, as long as the Sandinistas ran the government, the U.S. would continue its Contra war. So, in 1990, Nicaraguans replaced the FSLN with the UNO party run by Violeta Chamorro in a result that shocked many people outside Nicaragua, including the Sandistas’ U.S. polling firm. The people had spoken, and the Sandinistas accepted their verdict.

And that was momentous in itself. For the first time in history, a victorious revolutionary party allowed itself to be voted out of office, relinquishing many of its hopes, but preserving the democratic structures so many Nicaraguans had died to create and maintain.

Nicaragua in U.S. Hearts and Minds

While Nicaragua was having its revolution, back in the United States we were enduring our own: the Reagan Revolution. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential victory marked the beginning of the Republican Party’s successful attack on the New Deal structures still embedded in American life. The Reagan administration undermined unions, cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulated vital industries from banking to health care (with disastrous results still felt today), attacked social programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid, and turned perfectly respectable words like “welfare” and “entitlement” into code for African American moral turpitude. AIDS was ravaging gay communities, but the president refused to even say the word in public until the first year of his second term. Meanwhile, the Reagan administration escalated Richard Nixon’s “war on drugs” into a full-scale assault on poor communities. In 1986, the president signed a drug law requiring guaranteed — and long — prison sentences even for minor, non-violent drug offenses.

In other words, things in the U.S. were pretty grim. That made it tempting indeed to adopt someone else’s ready-made revolution, especially one that had already achieved so much and had such a great soundtrack: the music of the brothers Luis and Carlos Mejía Godoy, including the Sandinista anthem mentioned above and the beloved “Nicaragua, Nicaragüita,” with its final line,

Pero ahora que ya sos libre, Nicaragüita, yo te quiero mucho más.”(“But now that you are free, little Nicaragua, I love you so much more.”)

And Nicaragua was indeed free, although also under attack. The United States had always been its biggest trading partner. In 1985, however, President Reagan embargoed all trade with the country and cut off air and sea transport to and from the U.S. Other nations, including Soviet bloc countries, Cuba, and the European Union, along with many thousands of American individuals and organizations, stepped in to offer material aid, technical assistance, and in the case of Witness for Peace, accompaniment in the war zones. Such volunteers risked their lives — young engineer Ben Linder actually lost his — for the privilege of being part of this experiment in liberation.

In my six months there, I met Nicaraguans who had never been more than 50 kilometers from the tiny villages in which they were born, but had a vision of change that would spread across Central America, Latin America, and — as in my case — even reach the United States. Over and over, people told me,

“Americans can stop Congress from voting for aid to the Contras this year; you can stop it next year, but until you make a revolution in your own country, nothing will really change. We will always be confronted by U.S. power.”

Heady stuff. And it turned a lot of heads, not always in the most helpful ways. Some visiting Americans became ever more convinced that their own left-wing party back home was destined to become the vanguard that would bring revolution to North America. Some became more rojinegro (red and black, the colors of the FSLN’s flag) than the Sandinistas themselves and would hear no criticism of the party or its leaders. Others simply lived for the day when they could abandon the United States, with its hopeless, politically backward population, and make the permanent move to Nicaragua, and its highly conscious (or in today’s language, “woke”) people.

And some of us reluctantly acknowledged that, much as we loved Nicaragua’s brilliant green mountains, our real work lay in our own country. We came home believing that if we could not find a way to love the United States, despite its maddening intransigence, we would never find a way to change it.

Trouble in Paradise

Like everything in Nicaragua, its post-1990 history has proven complicated indeed. As a start, some of the elements in the FSLN most committed to popular democracy left to form smaller Sandinista-style parties, but without significant success at the ballot box. Meanwhile, in the months between the election and the transfer of power, many Sandinistas took part in the Piñata — a wholesale appropriation of state-owned property, companies, vehicles, and cash. In the process, Daniel Ortega, his wife Rosario Murillo, and other high-ranking party members began amassing personal fortunes and rebuilding their political power. The couple even underwent a well-publicized conversion to a charismatic form of Roman Catholicism (which helps explain why Nicaragua today has one of the world’s harshest anti-abortion laws).

By 1999, Ortega had made a pact with the notorious right-wing politician and then-president, Arnoldo Alemán. He and his PLC party, which drew its support from the oligarchic class that once supported Samoza, had beaten Violeta Chamorro in the 1996 election. Alemán was later convicted of corruption on a grand scale and sentenced to years of house arrest.

In 2006, Daniel Ortega was again elected president. Having himself weathered a number of personal scandals, including his stepdaughter Zoilamerica’s credible accusations of years of sexual abuse, he would gradually grant Alemán complete clemency.

In the 12 years since his second election, Ortega has consolidated his own power, placed family members in important (and lucrative) positions, and achieved full control of the FSLN party apparatus. He engineered constitutional changes that now permit him to serve an unlimited number of terms; that is, he granted himself a potential presidency for life.

In spite of the increasingly autocratic nature of his rule, Nicaragua has seen substantial economic development in the last decade, from which many have benefitted. Ortega’s is an authoritarian government that has nonetheless provided real material benefits to Nicaraguans. Furthermore, whether because of a lingering esprit de corps in the police and army or thanks to Ortega’s mano dura (harsh hand), or a combination of the two, the country is not suffering the plague of drugs and government-by-cartel that has terrorized the peoples of much of the rest of Central America and Mexico.

Today, the United States is once again Nicaragua’s largest trading partner and the Ortega government is on good terms with international lending agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

At the Crossroads

In towns and urban neighborhoods across the country, people have once again built barricades, as Sandinista supporters did in the 1979 insurrection against Somoza. Once again, they are pulling up the concrete paving blocks once produced in Somoza’s own factory — this time to prevent the Sandinista police from entering their towns and neighborhoods.

Envío, a digital magazine put out by the University of Central America in Managua, calls this uprising an unarmed revolution. “Unarmed” is a modest exaggeration, since defenders at many of the barricades have used homemade mortars (steel tubes which hold hemp fuses attached to bags of gunpowder), but the demonstrators are massively outgunned by the government’s regular army and the police, as well as the turbas — organized gangs of thugs.

For longtime Nicaragua-watchers, it has been strange to see COSEP, the country’s private industry council and inveterate Sandinista opponent, joining with university students and campesinos to create a Civil Alliance for Justice and Democracy. In late May, leaders of the Alliance agreed to a dialogue with the government, mediated by the country’s council of Catholic bishops. The talks have been on-again, off-again ever since.

Although leftists around the world hailed Ortega’s return to power, his is not the revolutionary government of the 1980s. Perhaps because they wish it were, some Ortega supporters here and elsewhere are treating the present uprisings as if they were a reprise of the Contra war, a right-wing coup attempt orchestrated in Washington. I don’t think that’s true, although I have Nicaraguan friends who disagree with me.

To blame everything that happens in the country on puppet masters in Washington denies Nicaraguans their own agency. As student leader Madelaine Caracas told the German news network Deutsche Welle:

“It’s us Nicaraguans who are in the streets. Not a political party, not liberals, not conservatives, not the CIA. It’s an awakening, an exhaustion with seeing our brothers murdered.”

Y Ahora, Qué? (Now What?)

When Somoza left power, the FSLN was waiting, ready to govern. As far as I can tell, today there is no such organized force on the left that could fill the vacuum left by Ortega, for example, by successfully campaigning in any new elections. If, however, Ortega refuses to leave office, the alternatives are at least as painful to consider: his successful repression of a genuine uprising of popular anger through yet more killings, beatings, and jailings (with the continuation of an autocratic government into the unknown future), or a turn from a largely unarmed and, when armed, defensive, resistance to a full-scale civil war, with all the horrors that entails.

The only thing I am sure of is that Nicaragua always does better when the United States is looking elsewhere. So let’s hope Trump keeps his focus on infuriating his allies and courting his enemies in other parts of the world.

Many years ago, I sat in a hotel room — really more of a cot in a shed — in the tiny town of San Juan de Bocay, talking with my Witness for Peace travelling companion and a young Sandinista soldier. The soldier’s pet chipmunk sat on the windowsill chewing sunflower seeds. We discussed what the revolution meant to him and his country, and his hopes as well as ours that Nicaragua’s seeds of liberation would spread through the Americas. In that warm, dim light, revolution almost seemed possible.

Maybe I should have paid more attention to the chipmunk’s name. It was Napoleon.

*

Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.

The Soldier’s Tale

June 26th, 2018 by Chris Hedges

The troops live under
The cannon’s thunder
From Sind to Cooch Behar
Moving from place to place
When they come face to face
With a different breed of fellow
Whose skins are black or yellow
They quick as winking chop him into
Beefsteak tartar

—“The Cannon Song” from “The Threepenny Opera”

The soldier’s tale is as old as war. It is told and then forgotten. There are always young men and women ardent for glory, seduced by the power to inflict violence and naive enough to die for the merchants of death. The soldier’s tale is the same, war after war, generation after generation. It is Spenser Rapone’s turn now. The second lieutenant was given an “other than honorable” discharge June 18 after an Army investigation determined that he “went online to promote a socialist revolution and disparage high-ranking officers” and thereby had engaged in “conduct unbecoming an officer.” Rapone laid bare the lie, although the lie often seems unassailable. We must honor those like him who have the moral courage to speak the truth about war, even if the tidal waves of patriotic propaganda that flood the culture overwhelm the voices of the just.

Rapone enlisted in the Army in 2010. He attended basic training at Fort Benning, Ga. He graduated from airborne school in February 2011 and became an Army Ranger. He watched as those around him swiftly fetishized their weapons.

“The rifle is the reification of what it means to be infantrymen,” he said when I reached him by phone in Watertown, N.Y. “You’re taught that the rifle is an extension of you. It is your life. You have to carry it at all times. The rifle made us warriors dedicated to destroying the enemy in close personal combat. At first, it was almost gleeful. We were a bunch of 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds. We had this instrument of death in our hands. We had power. We could do what 99 percent of our countrymen could not. The weapon changes you. You want to prove yourself. You want to be tested in combat. You want to deliver death. It draws you in, as much as life in the Army sucks. You start executing tactical maneuvers and battle drills. You get a certain high. It’s seductive. The military beats empathy out of you. It makes you callous.”

He was disturbed by what was happening around him and to him.

“When you get to RASP [the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program], you’re told you not only have to understand Ranger culture and history, you have to adopt what’s called an airborne Ranger in the sky,” he said. “They make you go online and look at Rangers who were killed in action. You have to learn about this person and print out a copy of their obituary. It’s really unsettling, the whole process. This was a class leader acting on behalf of the cadre, he said something to the effect of ‘I’ll give you a hint, don’t pick Pat Tillman.’ ”

Rapone began to read about Pat Tillman, the professional football player who joined the Rangers and was killed in 2004 in Afghanistan by friendly fire, a fact that senior military officials, including Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who at the time was the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, covered up and replaced with a fictitious Hollywood version of death in combat with the enemy. Rapone watched the 2010 documentary “The Tillman Story” and would later read the 2006 Truthdig essay “After Pat’s Birthday,” written by Pat’s brother Kevin, who was in the Rangers with Pat. Pat Tillman, who had been in contact with Noam Chomsky, had become a critic of the war. In addition to lying to the Tillman family about Pat’s death, the Army did not return, and probably destroyed, Pat’s papers and diary.

“Pat Tillman showed me I could resist the indoctrination,” he said. “I did not have to let the military dehumanize me and turn me into something monstrous. When I learned how his death was covered up to sell the war, it was shocking. The military wasn’t interested in preserving freedom or democracy. It was only interested in protecting the profits of those in power and expanding the U.S. hegemony. I was not a Hollywood freedom fighter. I was a cog in the imperialist machine. I preyed on the poorest, most exploited people on the planet.”

“We were told to ‘shoot, move, and communicate,’ ” he said of his Ranger training. “This became our entire existence. We did not need to understand why or the larger implications. These things did not concern us.”

By July 2011 he was in Khost province in Afghanistan. He was 19 years old. He was an assistant machine gunner on an Mk-48, an 18-pound weapon that is mounted on a tripod and has a fire rate of 500 to 625 rounds per minute. He carried the spare barrel, along with the ammunition, which he fed into the gun. When his fellow Rangers cleared dwellings at night he set up a blocking position. He watched as the Rangers separated terrified men, women and children, treating them “as if they were animals.” The Rangers spoke of the Afghans as subhumans, dismissing them as “hajjis” and “ragheads.”

“A lot of the guys would say, ‘I want to go out every night and kill people,’ ” he told me. “The Rangers are about hyper-masculinity, misogyny, racism, and a hatred of other cultures.”

His platoon sergeant had the hammer of Thor, a popular symbol among white supremacists, tattooed on his arm. The sergeant told new Rangers that if they saw something that upset them and wanted to speak out about it they were “in the wrong fucking place.”

Rapone left the Rangers to attend West Point in 2012. Maybe, as an officer, he could make a difference, infuse some humanity into his squads of killers. But he had his doubts.

“When I started West Point in July 2012 I encountered a lot of similar themes I noticed in the Ranger regiment,” he said. “Officers and NCOs relished the idea of being able to kill people with impunity. It’s Rudyard Kipling. It’s the young British soldier mentality we’ve seen for hundreds of years. Its hyper-masculine. Even female cadets have to assimilate themselves. Any display of femininity is considered weakness. This is combined with the structural racism. They still honor [Confederate Gen.] Robert E. Lee at West Point. There’s a barracks named after him. There’s a portrait of him in the library in his Confederate uniform. In the bottom right of the portrait, in the background, is a slave.”

Rapone watched with growing anger as black cadets were kicked out for infractions that did not lead to the expulsion of white cadets.

He majored in history. But he read outside of the curriculum, including authors such as Howard Zinn and Stan Goff, a former Special Forces master sergeant who had been in Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, Colombia and Somalia and who wrote “Hideous Dream: A Soldier’s Memoir of the U.S. Invasion of Haiti.”

“I realized we are the muscle for those with wealth and status,” Rapone said. “I also realized I was a socialist. It was jarring.”

His outspokenness and criticism saw him reprimanded.

“I almost got kicked out my senior year at West Point,” he said. “At that point, I was a socialist. When you study political economy, when you study critical theory, it informs your analysis and your work. It started off as an academic position. But I thought there has to be more to this. There has to be some kind of an action to back up my theories.”

He was derided as the “communist cadet.” He sought out those at the military academy who suffered from discrimination there, including people of color, women and Muslims. He joined the Muslim Cadet Association, although he is not Muslim.

“I wanted to help Muslim cadets find a platform,” he said. “I wanted them to know they were not forgotten. At West Point, there weren’t too many people who understood or appreciated Islam or how the U.S. has ripped Islamic countries to shreds.”

He helped organize an effort to provide Muslims at the academy with a proper prayer space, something that led him into heated arguments with senior administrative officials.

One professor confronted him:

“I’ve been watching you for the past three, four years—you think you can do whatever you want.”

“Yes, sir,” Rapone answered, a response that resulted in his being written up for speaking back to an officer.

The professor examined his social media accounts and found Rapone was posting articles from socialist publications and criticizing U.S. policy on Syrian refugees. The teacher sent a file on Rapone to the Criminal Investigations Division and G2, or military intelligence. Rapone was interrogated by senior officers. He was issued a “punishment tour” lasting 100 hours. He was forced to walk back and forth in the central square at West Point in his full dress uniform each week until the required hours were fulfilled.

“It looked like something out of a Monty Python sketch,” he said.

He was stripped of his privileges for 60 days. His spring break was canceled. He spent spring break doing landscaping and other menial tasks to “pay off” his punishment debt. He was required to train cadets who had not passed a required event.

“At West Point, they’ll maintain that hazing doesn’t exist,” he said, “at least the kind that was around in the ’50s or ’60s. But it’s still hazing. You’re considered a plebe when you first get to West Point. You take out upper classmen’s trash every night. You’re not allowed to talk when you’re outside as a plebe. You have to keep your hands balled up and walk in position of attention. If you’re caught talking to a classmate, you’ll get in trouble. The worst part is that those who move on from their plebe year enforce the same dehumanizing behavior, which they despised, on the new plebes.”

He had experienced hazing in the Rangers, too. New Rangers were forced to fight each other and do numerous push-ups or were hogtied and their stomachs were smacked repeatedly.

“The hazing weeds out people who won’t embrace it,” he said. “To resist total assimilation, a lot of people create an ironic detachment. But this ironic detachment is really another form of assimilation. It runs pretty deep. There was a guy in a leadership position who tried to kill himself when I was overseas. There were cadets who committed suicide when I was at West Point and others who tried to commit suicide. I spent eight years in the Army. Suicide was a very tangible reality. A lot of suicides were the result of the combination of hazing and military culture, which in a sense is a form of hazing. Your drill instructor can’t beat the shit out of you the way he used to, but the military still has methods to torture you emotionally.”

When he graduated from West Point he was sent back to Fort Benning, where he had been a young recruit six years earlier.

Image result for kneeling colin

“Every other Friday a basic training class graduates,” he said. “I would see these buzzed-cut teenaged boys, who had barely progressed out of puberty, being sent into the meat grinder. It was unsettling. I was being trained to lead these guys, to tell them the mission we were doing was just and right. I could not in good conscience do that. I searched for an opening. I looked for ways to leave or speak out. When the whole national anthem thing was starting up with Colin Kaepernick (image on the right), putting his skin in the game, risking himself to fight against systemic racism, I thought I could at least do my part.”

He posted a picture of himself in uniform with the hashtag #VeteransForKaepernick.

“Everything snowballed from there,” he said. “Colin Kaepernick, for me, was linked to Pat Tillman. He too was willing to risk himself and his status to speak truth to power.”

His public support of Kaepernick—along with his social media posts of photos of himself at his 2016 graduation at West Point wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt under his uniform and holding up his fist as he showed the words “Communism will win” on the inside of his cap—led to an investigation. Afterward, the Army’s 10th Mountain Division accept his resignation.

“The United States is almost religious about its patriotism,” he said. “Military personnel are seen as infallible. You have someone like [Secretary of Defense] James Mattis, who is a bona fide war criminal. He dropped bombs on a wedding ceremony in Iraq. He’s responsible for overseeing many different massacres in Iraq. Or [general and former national security adviser] H.R. McMaster. These people can’t do any wrong because they’ve served. This reverence for the military is priming the population to accept military rule and a form of fascism or protofascism. That’s why I felt even more compelled to get out.”

“The public doesn’t understand how regressive and toxic military culture is,” he went on. “The military’s inherent function is the abuse and degradation of other people. It is designed to be a vehicle of destruction. It’s fundamental to the system. Without that, it would collapse. You can’t convert the military into a humanitarian force even when you use the military in humanitarian ways, such as in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. The military trains soldiers to see other human beings, particularly brown and black human beings, as an imminent threat.”

“Of course, the military prides itself on being apolitical, which is oxymoronic,” he said. “The military is the political muscle of the state. There are few things more dangerous than a soldier who thinks he or she doesn’t have a political function.”

“I want to implore other soldiers and military personnel, there’s more to being a soldier than knowing how to fire a weapon,” Rapone said. “You can take a lot of what you’ve learned into society and actually help. At West Point, they say they teach you to be a leader of character. They talk to you about moral fortitude. But what do we see in the military? I was blindly following orders. I was inflicting violence on the poorest people on earth. How is there any morality in that?”

*

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, New York Times best selling author, former professor at Princeton University, activist and ordained Presbyterian minister. He has written 11 books, including the New York Times best-seller “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt” (2012), which he co-authored with the cartoonist Joe Sacco.

Featured image is by Mr. Fish/Truthdig.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Soldier’s Tale

The U.S. Navy has proposed training and testing exercises in the Pacific Ocean that could injure or kill thousands of marine mammals, including endangered whales and seals. The proposal would allow the Navy to harm marine mammals approximately 15 million times over five years.

That take, which the Navy today asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to authorize, could include seriously injuring 83 California long-beaked dolphins, three endangered blue whales and three Hawaiian monk seals, an endangered monk-seal population that has only recently begun to recover after heading toward extinction.

“The Navy doesn’t need to blow up dolphins or blast whales with sonar to keep us safe. Sonar can injure and deafen whales who depend on hearing for their survival,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hawaiian monk seals will pay a big price for the Navy’s war games in its habitat.”

The latest analysis shows the Navy exercises would cause approximately 15 million  harmful incidents. Long-beaked common dolphins could be harmed more than 1.1 million times and blue whales 9,245 times over five years. Hawaiian monk seals could be harmed 916 times. The exercises could also seriously injure 18 humpback whales, 444 short-beaked common dolphins and 478 California sea lions.

Ocean mammals depend on hearing for navigation, feeding and reproduction. Scientists have linked military sonar and live-fire activities to mass whale beaching, exploded eardrums and even death. In 2004, during war games near Hawaii, the Navy’s sonar was implicated in a mass stranding of up to 200 melon-headed whales in Hanalei Bay, Kauai.

The Navy and Fisheries Service estimate that, over the current plan’s five-year period, training and testing activities will result in thousands of animals suffering permanent hearing loss, lung injuries or death. Millions of animals will be exposed to temporary injuries and disturbances, with many subjected to multiple harmful exposures.

Featured image: Children in immigration detention facilities are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning, according to the Washington Post. (Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Patrol)

While tearing children away from parents under a policy designed to keep asylum seekers from entering U.S. society, the Trump administration is forcing those same children to pledge their allegiance to the country that is actively trying to expel them.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week stating that families would be detained together under his “zero tolerance” immigration policy, but thousands of children remain separated from their parents.

The Washington Post on Monday detailed the conditions in which many of those children are living, in detention centers like Casa Padre in Brownsville, Texas, describing “a converted Walmart where each morning they are required to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, in English, to the country that holds them apart from their parents.”

A facility employee told the Post, “We tell them, ‘It’s out of respect.'”

As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Casa Padre also features a prominently displayed mural of President Donald Trump.

As details about the treatment of children in detention facilities have emerged, many have drawn comparisons to internment camps for Japanese-Americans that were established during World War II. Actor and activist George Takei‘s memories of the camp he lived in as a child mirror the descriptions of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

As the Post‘s report coincided with much discussion of the Virginia restaurant whose owner refused to serve White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders over the weekend—and other public protests against administration officials—many critics strongly pushed back against the notion that Americans should be concerned with “civility” toward the Trump administration—while children are being forced to show “respect” for the government holding them hostage.

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

On June 19, the Senate passed a draft defense bill for FY 2019 that would halt the transfer of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft to Turkey, until the secretary of state certifies that Turkey will not accept deliveries of Russian S-400 Triumf air-defense systems. It paves the way for Ankara’s expulsion from the program if it does not bow to this pressure. The support for the measure (85-10) is too strong to be overridden.

Turkey has been one of six major partner nations in the JSF project since 2002. It is responsible for the production of certain components and for providing maintenance services in Europe to other operators of the aircraft. About a dozen Turkish companies are involved in the manufacturing, in accordance with the deal that was reached 16 years ago (2002). Ankara has placed an order to buy more than 100 F-35A Lightning IIs. It has already paid $800 million, so any restrictions that are imposed now will be an illegal breach of obligations by the US.

On June 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee added an amendment to the foreign-aid bill that would put a stop to future deliveries, if Ankara does not cancel the S-400 deal already concluded with Moscow. One of the arguments for blocking the F-35 transfer is the fear that Russia would get access to the JSF, enabling Moscow to detect and exploit its vulnerabilities. It would learn how the S-400 could take out an F-35.

Screenshot from the Reuters

The House version contains even more limits on arms transfers to Turkey. In May, the bill passed the House with a provision mandating a temporary hold on all major defense sales to Turkey, including F-35s, due in part to its impending purchase of the S-400. Almaz-Antey, the company that manufactures the Triumf, is on a State Department list of banned entities. Any deal with that firm could result in sanctions. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) has introduced an amendment to the FY 2019 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 6157) that would bar the planned transfer of the aircraft to Turkey. So, there may be some changes to the wording but that won’t significantly alter the final result — the F-35 transfer will remain blocked after the reconciliation process.

The bill is expected to become law this summer. The administration will have no choice but to exclude Turkey from the F-35 program, to remove any parts of the plane produced in that country, and to ban the Turkish F-35s from leaving the territory of the United States.

Despite the proceedings on Capitol Hill, officials from the government and Lockheed Martin held a ceremony on June 21 in Fort Worth, Texas, to mark the “roll out” of the first F-35A Lightning II jet under its Turkish program. It was an imposing ceremony, but it disguised some sleight of hand. The US government will retain custody of the aircraft while the Turkish pilots and service technicians are undergoing training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. This is a long process that will take several years, but the bill will become law soon. Turkey may be denied access to the cloud-based Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) computer network, depriving it of software updates and other data. The US could insert some malicious code to disable the aircraft even if they are transferred and based in Turkey in 2020 as planned.

US officials don’t shy away from open statements about their intentions to exert pressure and prevent other countries from buying Russian weapons.

“I would work with our allies to dissuade them, or encourage them, to avoid military purchases that would be potentially sanctionable,” said David Schenker, the nominee for assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, at his Senate confirmation hearing on June 14. “In other words, I would tell Saudi Arabia not to do it,” he explained.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are in talks with Moscow to buy the S-400.

According to UAWire, The US State Department’s Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction has announced a tender for the monitoring of open-source information about arms deals involving the Russian Federation and the CIS countries. That data will be collected in Russian, English, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Urdu, and several other languages. The information will be used for decision-making and planning sanctions against foreign states.

So far, the policy of twisting arms has failed. Demand for Russian arms is booming in the Middle East and Africa. Just a few days ago, one of Iraq’s armored brigades swapped out its American-made M1 Abrams tanks for new Russian T-90s. Last year, Russia and Iraq signed a huge arms deal.

Unfazed by the US lawmakers’ stance, Ankara remains all set to go ahead with the purchase of the S-400 from Moscow. If the deal is blocked it will find an alternative, such as Russia’s Su-57 jet, or Turkey could produce an aircraft of its own, as part of its indigenous TFX stealth fighter program.

India has recently been warned against buying the Russian S-400. If it does, a ban will be put in place on sharing sensitive American military technology with Delhi, which is refusing to back down under pressure.

A deal is not always what one may think it is. A deal signed with the US is a special case because there are strings attached, which cannot be found in the text and are not mentioned during the negotiations. All of a sudden a partner finds out that there is a caveat that goes without saying. One may sign a deal and be naive enough to take it at face value, only to find out later that it will not be valid if certain unwritten conditions are not met. If you cooperate with another country without US approval, like Turkey does, you don’t get what you are entitled to under the terms of that agreement. Buy American, they say, but if you make a deal with Russia, like India wants to do, the access to the best technology the US has is going to be cut off.

Congress has offered a lesson to those who cooperate with America. They should remember that whatever they may sign with Washington cannot be taken for granted. US lawmakers can change everything to their heart’s content at any time they wish. There is nothing worse than an unreliable partner. And that’s what America is.

*

Peter Korzun is an expert on wars and conflicts.

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: The ‘high risk’ Sizewell nuclear power plant, seen from Southwold, Suffolk. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

In the Guardian recently, Paul Brown reminded us that in 2012 a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Environment Agency was warning that 12 out of the UK’s 19 nuclear sites were in danger of coastal flooding and erosion because of climate change. Among them was Hinkley Point in Somerset, one of the eight proposed sites for new nuclear power stations around the coasts.

The analysis was conducted by officials from the floods and coastal erosion team (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra) as part of a major investigation into the impact of climate change on the UK. But when the results were published in January 2012 only summary numbers for the 2080s were mentioned and no individual sites were named.

That was before the increasing volume of melting of the Greenland ice cap was properly understood and when most experts thought there was no net melting in the Antarctic.

Now we read that melting ice sheets are hastening sea level rise and satellite measurements and that warmer seas are eroding ice shelves and glaciers. Estimates of sea level rise in the next 50 years have gone up from less than 30cm to more than a metre, well within the lifespan of the nuclear stations the UK government has planned.

Defra has now released its full analysis in response to a request under freedom of information legislation. As a result, the department’s assessments of the risks for individual sites can be disclosed for the first time. Seven of those sites containing radioactive waste stores are judged to be at some risk of flooding now, with a further three at risk of erosion by the 2080s.

Experts suggested the main concern was of inundation causing nuclear waste leaks.

“Sea level rise, especially in the south-east of England, will mean some of these sites will be under water within 100 years,” said David Crichton, a flood specialist and honorary professor at the hazard research centre at University College London. “This will make decommissioning expensive and difficult, not to mention the recovery and movement of nuclear waste to higher ground.”

The extra coastal erosion and threat of storm surges that this increase in sea level will bring to our shores might make sensible people think twice about siting any buildings in vulnerable places, let alone nuclear power stations.

So far, however, the government has yet to respond and is pressing ahead with its plans.

The Moseley reader who drew attention to this issue sends a useful link to a government report on rising sea levels (cover above right) with reference to nuclear issues on Page 15 and comments:

“Worrying, as it demonstrates yet more short term thinking by government, the members of which will be long gone when the problems are evident.

“Perhaps they should be forced to make all decisions based on the lives of their grandchildren; which would be forfeit should things go wrong!”

Featured image: Israeli occupation forces [Source: Salih Zeki Fazlıoğlu/Anadolu Agency]

The Israeli military has prepared plans for a full-scale invasion of the occupied Gaza Strip, in the event of a serious escalation in the south, according to a report by Israeli news site Ynet.

Veteran correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai, citing unnamed Israeli military officials, wrote that the army “is already considering alternatives to the Hamas government”, should the latter not cooperate in efforts to establish an economic-security “arrangement” in Gaza agreeable to the Israelis.

“There is a feeling in the [Israeli army’s] Southern Command that, this time, the IDF will be able to create a considerable change in the situation if it is required to launch a major campaign in Gaza,” wrote Ben-Yishai.

“The offensive missions inside the Strip will be carried out from now on by the IDF’s tip of the spear storming divisions, which—according to the plan—will enter Gaza and dissect it in two, and even occupy significant parts of it,” Ben-Yishai continued.

“The plan is based on three things: A strong protection of the western Negev and the Israeli home front, a systemic blow of fire in full force from the very first moment, and a quick broad manoeuvre into the Strip to dissect it and conquer parts of it.”

According to the defence expert, the Israeli army’s goal “will be to prevent Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad from gaining psychological achievements and getting them to request a ceasefire as soon as possible following the beginning of the fighting.”

Israel will also reportedly seek to prevent the involvement of a third-party mediator by “reach[ing] a military victory in the next war that will be so decisive and unequivocal that it will allow Israel to dictate the terms for the end of the fighting to Hamas and to the Palestinian factions.”

There’s no one more interesting and important in the JFK story–and indeed the history of the CIA–who is more important than the late James Angleton. Lisa Pease has studied the man and had a few things to say at the AARC’s conference on the Warren Commission on September 27, 2014.

This version of Ms. Pease’s lecture is somewhat edited and shortened.

.

Saudi Wahhabism Serves Western Imperialism

June 26th, 2018 by Andre Vltchek

First published by Global Research on May 27, 2018

When the Saudi Crown Prince gave an interview to the Washington Post, declaring that it was actually the West that encouraged his country to spread Wahhabism to all corners of the world, there was a long silence in almost all the mass media outlets in the West, but also in countries such as Egypt and Indonesia.

Those who read the statement, expected a determined rebuke from Riyadh. It did not come. The sky did not fall. Lightning did not strike the Prince or the Post.

Clearly, not all that the Crown Prince declared appeared on the pages of the Washington Post, but what actually did, would be enough to bring down entire regimes in such places like Indonesia, Malaysia or Brunei.Or at least it would be enough under ‘normal circumstances’. That is, if the population there was not already hopelessly and thoroughly indoctrinated and programed, and if the rulers in those countries did not subscribe to, or tolerate, the most aggressive, chauvinistic and ritualistic (as opposed to the intellectual or spiritual) form of the religion.

Reading between the lines, the Saudi Prince suggested that it was actually the West which, while fighting an ‘ideological war’ against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, handpicked Islam and its ultra-orthodox and radical wing – Wahhabism – as an ally in destroying almost all the progressive, anti-imperialist and egalitarian aspirations in the countries with a Muslim majority.

As reported by RT on 28 March 2018:

“The Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism began as a result of Western countries asking Riyadh to help counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the Washington Post.

Speaking to the paper, bin Salman said that Saudi Arabia’s Western allies urged the country to invest in mosques and madrassas overseas during the Cold War, in an effort to prevent encroachment in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union…

The interview with the crown prince was initially held ‘off the record’. However, the Saudi embassy later agreed to let the Washington Post publish specific portions of the meeting.”

Since the beginning of the spread of Wahhabism, one country after another had been falling; ruined by ignorance, fanatical zeal and fear, which have been preventing the people of countries such as post-1965 Indonesia or the post-Western-invasion Iraq, to move back (to the era before Western intervention) and at the same time forward,towards something that used to be so natural to their culture in not such a distant past – towards socialism or at least tolerant secularism.

*

In reality, Wahhabism does not have much to do with Islam. Or more precisely, it intercepts and derails the natural development of Islam, of its strife for an egalitarian arrangement of the world, and for socialism.

The Brits were behind the birth of the movement; the Brits and one of the most radical, fundamentalist and regressive preachers of all times – Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

The essence of the Wahabi/British alliance and dogma was and still is, extremely simple: “Religious leaders would force the people into terrible, irrational fear and consequent submission. No criticism of the religion is allowed;no questioning of its essence and particularly of the conservative and archaic interpretation of the Book. Once conditioned this way, people stopped questioning and criticizing first the feudalist, and later capitalist oppression; they also accepted without blinking the plunder of their natural resources by local and foreign masters. All attempts to build a socialist and egalitarian society got deterred, brutally, ‘in the name of Islam’ and ‘in the name of God’”.

Of course,as a result, the Western imperialists and the local servile ‘elites’ are laughing all the way to the bank, at the expense of those impoverished and duped millions in the countries that are controlled by the Wahhabi and Western dogmas.

Only a few in the devastated, colonized countries actually realize that Wahhabism does not serve God or the people; it is helping Western interests and greed.

Precisely this is what is right now happening in Indonesia, but also in several other countries that have been conquered by the West, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Destroyed Aleppo

Were Syria to fall, this historically secular and socially-oriented nation would be forced into the same horrid direction. People there are well aware of this, as they are educated. They also see what has happened to Libya and Iraq and they definitely do not want to end up like them. It is the Wahhabi terrorist fighters that both the West and its lackeys like Saudi Arabia unleashed against the Syrian state and its people.

*

Despite its hypocritical secular rhetoric, manufactured mainly for local consumption but not for the colonies, the West is glorifying or at least refusing to openly criticize its own brutal and ‘anti-people’ offspring – a concept which has already consumed and ruined both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. In fact, it is trying to convince the world that these two countries are ‘normal’, and in the case of Indonesia, both ‘democratic’ and ‘tolerant’. At the same time,it has consistently been antagonizing almost all the secular or relatively secular nations with substantial Muslim majorities, such as Syria (until now), but also Afghanistan, Iran (prior to the coup of 1953), Iraq and Libya before they were thoroughly and brutally smashed.

Extremist attacks against Indonesian churches 

It is because the state, in which the KSA, Indonesia and the present-day Afghanistan can be found, is the direct result of both Western interventions and indoctrination. The injected Wahhabi dogma is giving this Western ‘project’ a Muslim flavor, while justifying trillions of dollars on ‘defense spending’ for the so-called ‘War on Terror’ (a concept resembling an Asian fishing pond where fish are brought in and then fished out for a fee).

Obedience, even submissiveness – is where, for many reasons, the West wants its ‘client’ states and neo-colonies to be. The KSA is an important trophy because of its oil, and strategic position in the region. Saudi rulers are often going out of their way to please their masters in London and Washington, implementing the most aggressive pro-Western foreign policy. Afghanistan is ‘valued’ for its geographical location, which could potentially allow the West to intimidate and even eventually invade both Iran and Pakistan, while inserting extremist Muslim movements into China, Russia and the former Soviet Central Asian republics. Between 1 and 3 million Indonesian people ‘had to be’ massacred in 1965-66, in order to bring to power a corrupt turbo-capitalist clique which could guarantee that the initially bottomless (although now rapidly thinning) natural resources could flow, uninterrupted and often untaxed, into places such as North America, Europe, Japan and Australia.

Frankly, there is absolutely nothing ‘normal’ about countries such as Indonesia and the KSA. In fact, it would take decades, but most likely entire generations, in order to return them to at least some sort of nominal ‘normalcy’. Even if the process were to begin soon, the West hopes that by the time it ends, almost all of the natural resources of these countries would be gone.

But the process is not yet even beginning. The main reason for the intellectual stagnation and lack or resistance is obvious: people in countries such as Indonesia and KSA are conditioned so they are not able to see the brutal reality that surrounds them. They are indoctrinated and ‘pacified’. They have been told that socialism equals atheism and that atheism is evil, illegal and ‘sinful’.

Hence, Islam was modified by the Western and Saudi demagogues, and has been ‘sent to a battle’, against progress and a just, egalitarian arrangement of the world.

This version of religion is unapologetically defending Western imperialism, savage capitalism as well as the intellectual and creative collapse of the countries into which it was injected, including Indonesia. There, in turn, the West tolerates the thorough corruption, grotesque lack of social services, and even genocides and holocausts committed first against the Indonesians themselves, then against the people of East Timor, and to this day against the defenseless Papuan men, women and children. And it is not only a ‘tolerance’ – the West participates directly in these massacres and extermination campaigns, as it also takes part in spreading the vilest forms of Wahabi terrorism and dogmas to all corners of the world. . All this, while tens of millions of the followers of Wahhabism are filling the mosques daily, performing mechanical rituals without any deeper thought or soul searching.

Wahhabism works – it works for the mining companies and banks with their headquarters in London and New York. It also works extremely well for the rulers and the local ‘elites’ inside the ‘client’ states.

*

Ziauddin Sardar, a leading Muslim scholar from Pakistan, who is based in London, has no doubts that ‘Muslim fundamentalism’ is, to a great extent, the result of the Western imperialism and colonialism.

In a conversation which we had several years ago, he explained:

“Trust between Islam and the West has indeed been broken… We need to realize that colonialism did much more than simply damage Muslim nations and cultures. It played a major part in the suppression and eventual disappearance of knowledge and learning, thought and creativity, from Muslim cultures. The colonial encounter began by appropriating the knowledge and learning of Islam, which became the basis of the ‘European Renaissance’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ and ended by eradicating this knowledge and learning from both from Muslim societies and from history itself. It did that both by physical elimination – destroying and closing down institutions of learning, banning certain types of indigenous knowledge, killing off local thinkers and scholars – and by rewriting history as the history of western civilization into which all minor histories of other civilization are subsumed.”

“As a consequence, Muslim cultures were de-linked from their own history with many serious consequences. For example, the colonial suppression of Islamic science led to the displacement of scientific culture from Muslim society. It did this by introducing new systems of administration, law, education and economy all of which were designed to impart dependence, compliance and subservience to the colonial powers. The decline of Islamic science and learning is one aspect of the general economic and political decay and deterioration of Muslim societies. Islam has thus been transformed from a dynamic culture and a holistic way of life to mere rhetoric. Islamic education has become a cul-de-sac, a one-way ticket to marginality. It also led to the conceptual reduction of Muslim civilization. By which I mean concepts that shaped and gave direction to Muslim societies became divorced from the actual daily lives of Muslims – leading to the kind of intellectual impasse that we find in Muslim societies today.  Western neo-colonialism perpetuates that system.”

*

In Indonesia, after the Western-sponsored military coup of 1965, which destroyed the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and brought to power an extreme pro-market and pro-Western regime, things are deteriorating with a frightening predictability, consistency and speed.

While the fascist dictator Suharto, a Western implant after 1965, was said to be ‘suspicious of Islam’, he actually used all major religions on his archipelago with great precision and fatal impact. During his pro-market despotism, all left-wing movements and ‘-isms’ were banned, and so were most of the progressive forms of arts and thought.The Chinese language was made illegal. Atheism was also banned. Indonesia rapidly became one of the most religious countries on Earth.

At least one million people, including members of the PKI, were brutally massacred in one of the most monstrous genocides of the 20th century.

The fascist dictatorship of General Suharto often played the Islamic card for its political ends. As described by John Pilger in his book,“The New Rulers of The World”:

“In the pogroms of 1965-66, Suharto’s generals often used Islamicist groups to attack communists and anybody who got in the way. A pattern emerged; whenever the army wanted to assert its political authority, it would use Islamicists in acts of violence and sabotage, so that sectarianism could be blamed and justify the inevitable ‘crackdown’ – by the army…”

‘A fine example’ of cooperation between the murderous right-wing dictatorship and radical Islam.

After Suharto stepped down, the trend towards a grotesque and fundamentalist interpretation of the monotheist religions continued. Saudi Arabia and the Western-favored and sponsored Wahhabism has been playing an increasingly significant role. And so has Christianity, often preached by radical right-wing former exiles from Communist China and their offspring; mainly in the city of Surabaya but also elsewhere.

From a secular and progressive nation under the leadership of President Sukarno, Indonesia has gradually descended into an increasingly radically backward-looking and bigoted Wahhabi-style/Christian Pentecostal state.

After being forced to resign as the President of Indonesia during what many considered a constitutional coup, a progressive Muslim cleric and undoubtedly a closet socialist, Abdurrahman Wahid (known in Indonesia by his nickname Gus Dur), shared with me his thoughts, on the record:

“These days, most of Indonesian people do not care or think about God. They only follow rituals. If God would descend and tell them that their interpretation of Islam is wrong, they’d continue following this form of Islam and ignore the God.”

‘Gus Dur’ also clearly saw through all the tricks of the military and pro-Western elites. He told me, among other things, that the 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Jakarta was organized by the Indonesian security forces, and later blamed on the Islamists, who were actually only executing the orders given to them by their political bosses from the pro-Western military regime, which until nowis being disguised as a, ‘multi-party democracy’.

In Indonesia, an extreme and unquestioning obedience to the religions has led to a blind acceptance of a fascist capitalist system, and of Western imperialism and its propaganda. Creativity and intellectual pluralism have been thoroughly liquidated.

The 4th most populous nation on the planet, Indonesia, has presently no scientists, architects, philosophers or artists of any international standing. Its economy is fueled exclusively by the unbridled plunder of the natural resources of the vast, and in the past, pristine parts of the country, such as Sumatra and Indonesian Borneo (Kalimantan), as well as on the brutally-occupied Western part of Papua. The scale of the environmental destruction is monumental; something that I am presently trying to capture in two documentary films and a book.

Awareness of the state of things, even among the victims, is minimal or out rightly nonexistent.

In a country that has been robbed of its riches; identity, culture and future, religions now playthe most important role. There is simply nothing else left for the majority. Nihilism, cynicism, corruption and thuggery are ruling unopposed. In the cities with no theatres, galleries, art cinemas, but also no public transportation or even sidewalks, in the monstrous urban centers abandoned to the ‘markets’ with hardly any greenery or public parks, religions are readily filling the emptiness. Being themselves regressive, pro-market oriented and greedy, the results are easily predictable.

In the city of Surabaya, during the capturing of footage for my documentary film produced for a South American television network TeleSur (Surabaya – Eaten Alive by Capitalism), I stumbled over an enormous Protestant Christian gathering at a mall, where thousands of people were in an absolute trance, yelling and lifting their eyes towards the ceiling. A female preacher was shouting into a microphone:

“God loves the rich, and that is why they are rich! God hates the poor, and that’s why they are poor!”

Von Hayek, Friedmann, Rockefeller, Wahab and Lloyd George combined could hardly define their ‘ideals’in more precise way.

*

What exactly did the Saudi Prince say, during his memorable and ground-breaking interview with The Washington Post? And why is it so relevant to places like Indonesia?

In essence, he said that the West asked the Saudis to make the ‘client’ states more and more religious, by building madrassahs and mosques. He also added:

“I believe Islam is sensible, Islam is simple, and people are trying to hijack it.”

People? The Saudi themselves? Clerics in such places like Indonesia? The Western rulers?

In Teheran, Iran, while discussing the problem with numerous religious leaders, I was told, repeatedly:

“The West managed to create a totally new and strange religion, and then it injected it into various countries. It calls it Islam, but we can’t recognize it… It is not Islam, not Islam at all.”

*

In May 2018, in Indonesia, members of outlawed terrorist groups rioted in jail, took hostages, then brutally murdered prison guards. After the rebellion was crushed, several explosions shook East Java. Churches and police stations went up in flames. People died.

The killers used their family members, even children, to perpetrate the attacks. The men in charge were actually inspired by the Indonesian fighters who were implanted into in Syria –the terrorists and murderers who were apprehended and deported by Damascus back to their large and confused country.

Many Indonesian terrorists who fought in Syria are now on their home turf, igniting and ‘inspiring’ their fellow citizens. The same situation as in the past – the Indonesian jihadi cadres who fought against the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan later returned and killed hundreds and thousands in Poso, Ambon and other parts of Indonesia.

Indonesian extremists are becoming world-famous, fighting the battles of the West as legionnaires, in Afghanistan, Syria, Philippines and elsewhere.

Their influence at home is also growing. It is now impossible to even mention any social or god forbid, socialist reforms in public. Meetings are broken up, participants beaten, and even people’s representatives (MP’s)intimidated, accused of being “communists”, in a country where Communism is still banned by the regime.

The progressive and extremely popular Jakarta governor, Ahok, first lost elections and was then put on trial and thrown into jail for “insulting Islam”, clearly fabricated charges. His main sin – cleaning Jakarta’s polluted rivers, constructing a public transportation network, and improving the lives of ordinary people. That was clearly ‘un-Islamic’, at least from the point of view of Wahhabism and the Western global regime.

Radical Indonesian Islam is now feared. It goes unchallenged. It is gaining ground, as almost no one would dare to openly criticize it. It will soon overwhelm and suppress the entire society.

And in the West ‘political correctness’ is used. It is lately simply ‘impolite’ to criticize Indonesian or even the Saudi form of ‘Islam’, out of ‘respect’ for the people and their ‘culture’. In reality, it is not the Saudi or Indonesian people who get ‘protected’ – it is the West and its imperialist policies; policies and manipulations that are used against both the people and the essence of Muslim religion.

*

While the Wahhabi/Western dogma is getting stronger and stronger, what is left of the Indonesian forests is burning. The country is literally being plundered by the Western multi-national companies and by its local corrupt elites.

Religions, the Indonesian fascist regime and Western imperialism are marching forward, hand in hand. But forward – where? Most likely towards the total collapse of the Indonesian state. Towards the misery that will come soon, when everything is logged out and mined out.

It is the same, as when Wahhabism used to march hand in hand with the British imperialists and plunderers. Except that the Saudis found their huge oil fields, plenty of oil to sustain themselves (or at least their elites and the middle class, as the poor still live in misery there) and their bizarre, British-inspired and sponsored interpretation of Islam.

Indonesia and other countries that have fallen victims to this dogma are not and will not be so ‘lucky’.

It is lovely that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke publicly and clarified the situation. But who will listen?

For the Indonesian people, his statements came too late. They did not open many eyes, caused no uprising, no revolution. To understand what he said would require at least some basic knowledge of both the local, and world history, and at least some ability to think logically. All this is lacking, desperately, in the countries that have found themselves squashed by the destructive imperialist embrace.

The former President of Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid, was correct: “If God would come and say… people would not follow God…”

Indonesia will continue following Mr. Wahab, and the capitalist dogma and the Western imperialists who ‘arranged it all’. They will do it for years to come, feeling righteous, blasting old North American tunes in order to fill the silence, in order not to think and not to question what is happening around them. There will be no doubts. There will be no change, no awakening and no revolution.

Until the last tree falls,until the last river and stream gets poisoned, until there is nothing left for the people. Until there is total, absolute submission:until everything is burned down, black and grey. Maybe then, few tiny, humble roots of awakening and resistance would begin to grow.

*

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 his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” 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.

All images in this article are from the author.

The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert

June 26th, 2018 by Ron Ridenour

Ron Ridenour’s book, The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert, a true historical page-turner, is destined to endure and inform future readers, writers and researchers about both what has been reported—mainly malicious propaganda—and what truly took place in the one hundred years from the 1917 Russian Revolution until the eruption of the distinct harbingers of the collapse of the US empire in the early twenty-first century.

Events often just seem to happen, caught up in the swirl of history. But still, we try to interpret them and to understand. And then, in many cases, take a stand for or against. Understanding is like discovering a new world, like converting to a new faith. Revolt invades your life and everything is different from what it once was. Ridenour’s book helps us along the way to first remembering the historical facts so that we can then understand. His new work documents clearly facts about the early years of the Soviet Union’s relations with the West, its difficult steps toward socio-political maturity and Communism, and its enormous sacrifices along the way: its defeat of Western intervention during the revolutionary and civil war period; its regulation of state economic planning and the reforms required for the industrialization of the nation; its defeat of the German Nazi military juggernaut at the gates of Russia’s major cities and the coup de grace in the ferocious battle in Stalingrad, defeating German invaders and crushing Nazi Germany before the USA even entered the war; and finally the arduous salvation of Russia after the collapse of the USSR under US post-WWII economic firepower and the most treacherous anti-Russian policies since the early 1900s.

Those Western policies continue to determine US-Russian relations today. Throughout this long work Ridenour recalls and clarifies diverse significant historical details, obscured by time and by Western propaganda, facts that are so easily forgotten or that were never learned: such ignored truths as the importance of the USSR in the defeat of Japan in WWII and the timing of the US use of the atomic bomb in Japan. Not many people are aware of the extent of the destruction of many Japanese cities which the author details here. He points out that the Soviet Union kept its word to help the United States by its intervention against Japan, the decisive reason why Japan was defeated even before the atomic bombs fell. A stunning but little known fact is that in response to the Russians’ sacrifice the Anglo-American leaders—first Churchill and later Truman— were hatching Operation Unthinkable and Operation Pincher to launch a surprise war against Soviet forces in Europe. These military plots included the potential use of nuclear bombs. This is a book that no well-informed Western reader should be without, especially those inhabiting the homeland of the new empire, the dangerously brainwashed United States.

***

Title: The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert

Author: Ron Ridenour

Publisher: Punto Press, LLC; 1 edition (June 22, 2018)

ISBN-10: 0996487069

ISBN-13: 978-0996487061

Click here to order.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert

Here’s the Law on Migrants. U.S. immigration law essentially tracks the wording of the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol to it.

In the United States and elsewhere, there are refugees and asylees. Refugees are people who meet the appropriate legal status and are of special humanitarian concern. Standing as such is granted, in general, on the basis of a person being unable or unwilling to return to their country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, an asylee is someone who meets the definition of refugee and is already in the United States or is seeking admission at a port of entry. [101(a)(42) and 208(a) et seq. of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, INA]. There is no provision for migrants, i.e., no provision for economic refugees, no provision for opportunistic refugees, no provision for unstable-country refugees, no provision for criminal refugees. And refugee status is not permanent, while asylum is.

Europe’s refugee crisis is modeled on that of the United States. And both derive from American foreign and domestic policy.

Differing Views on Migrants. Europeans, even knowledgeable ones, generally take the view of one individual known to the author that “I am wary of the ‘migrant timebomb’ messaging as it feeds far right Islamophobia. I believe in migration especially as [the]West has destroyed/destabilized/ financially raped so many of the ‘migrants’ countries… my family and I live in an increasing atmosphere of heightened alert because of hatred of Muslims across Europe. It’s always really important to keep our empathy alive and avoid ‘othering’.”

The real link to the migrant crisis, whether it be the United States or Europe, is right there in plain English: essentially, “don’t put an end to the destruction of the migrants’ countries; just let them in, be empathetic, and avoid ‘othering’ “.

Origin and Nature of the Problem. At one time or another, the United States has invaded, attacked, subverted, or regime-changed nearly every country south of its border with Mexico, as well as most of those in the Caribbean. Because of wrecked governments, devastated economies, and consequent loss of freedom, waves of migrants have moved north to the “Land of Opportunity”, now called by some on National Public Radio here as the “Land of Humanity”. Why “Humanity”? Because the migrants are using children, accompanied or unaccompanied, as “protection” to guarantee their admission to the United States. It is an emotional counter to President Donald J. Trump‘s ill-thought out policy of “Zero Tolerance” for illegal aliens. This is the pattern governing the current situation in Europe.

The concept of migration, whether it be in America or the Continent, boils down to permitting the free flow of immigrants. The idea is that everyone has the right to move to another country and live a better life. Laws, regulations, language, customs, society, housing, available jobs have no role in the matter. And this view is gaining traction. In October 2017, at the University of Hartford, Connecticut, the author spoke about his books, Visas for Al Qaeda, CIA Handouts That Rocked The World and Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos? Merkel’s Migrant Bomb. The evening went well until one member of the audience asked if this writer supported unrestricted emigration. The reply was “No”. Citing the laws of the United States and those of other countries, the author told the listener that no country on earth permitted people to pack up and move into the state without meeting existing legal requirements. The man persisted in what became his demands for unlimited colonization, to the point where the moderator had to shut him down as disrupting the meeting.

Image result for germany immigrants

Migrants and Merkel. In Europe, to a great extent, the migrant issue is closely connected to Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, i.e., Prime Minister, and the country’s history. Those who back Merkel’s stance on welcoming incoming aliens with candy and flowers and who oppose any effort to restrict their entrance or send them home generally have a specific background. They are people who had either personal knowledge of the Second World War or the 10 years immediately afterwards. As one 75-year old German journalist recently told this writer, Germany, because of its sordid past in the 1930s and 1940s, has a special requirement to take in anyone who needs a better life. And Angela Merkel, perhaps because of her 35 years in Communist East Germany, is well placed to understand the migrants’ plight and provide relief, she said. The correspondent also repeated the German government line that opposition to unrestricted relocation was the purview of extreme right-wing groups filled with neo-Nazis like the AfD, Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany). Our interlocutor did note that Merkel, perhaps, has stayed too long in office and that she is increasingly less effective in her position. Continuing, our contact feared a migration-sparked breakup of the shaky governing coalition and felt that new elections would increase the AfD’s representation in parliament, the Bundestag.

What the West Hath Wrought. To focus on what U.S. policy has done to Europe by creating a migrant crisis, let’s look again at our well-connected, extremely knowledgeable contact’s statement: “[the]West has destroyed/destabilized/ financially raped so many of the ‘migrants’ countries…”

Without covering the entire world, see what “the American Way” has done in:

  • Afghanistan. War–1978 to the present. By 1982, 2.8 million Afghans had fled to Pakistan and 1.5 million to Iran. By 1989, 15,000 Soviet soldiers had been killed, along with about 2 million Afghans. At the end of 2015, the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] estimated there are approximately 1.2 million internally displaced persons in Afghanistan. An additional 2.7 million Afghans are refugees abroad, primarily in Pakistan and Iran. A quarter of refugees worldwide are Afghan.
  • Yugoslavia. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia once was comprised of six republics: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro, and two autonomous provinces. As the result of Germany encouraging secession and a series of wars (1991-1995; 1998-1999) in which the U.S. and NATO participated, the country became seven statelets, i.e., the foregoing plus Kosovo. Two hundred thousand people were killed; 2.7 million made homeless.
  • Iraq. As the result of American sanctions and warfare against Iraq, as of 2017, according to the UNHCR, 2.6 million were still internally displaced, and about 1.5 million refugees have returned from abroad. Nearly 1 million people have died as the result of combat, about a million adults through sanctions, and 500,000 children through sanctions.
  • Libya. In 2017, 200,000 people remain internally displaced as the result of the 2011 war against Moammar Gaddafi. More than 200,000 migrants, out of a total of about 472,000, went to Europe in 2017. In the fighting, 30,000 died, with another 50,000 wounded.
  • Syria. Since 2011, over 250,000 have died in the war, and half the country’s population has been displaced — including four million Syrian refugees abroad in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Europe.

The Migrants Are Still Marching But Change May Be Coming. Naturally, the migrants keep marching. Allegedly democratic governments have, until recently, ignored their citizens’ protests. (The United States’ news media plays up only the opposition to illegal aliens, emphasizing the wrongs done to people violating the Immigration and Nationality Act. They say not a word about unlawful voting, illegal entry, or the benefits of cheap, easily exploited labor.) But change seems to be coming, at least in Europe.

  • As noted earlier, Germany‘s ruling coalition supports the continued entry of migrants (with increasing restrictions). However, it fears the growing clout of increasingly vocal opposition groups such as the AfD, now the third-strongest party in the Bundestag.
  • Austria, because of the migrant wave, has a new, right-wing government now placing restrictions on illegal aliens. According to a contact just returned from Italy, Austrian border guards are now checking bus riders traveling through the Brenner Pass into the old Archduchy.
  • Italy is another country that has elected a government opposed to the unending migrant stream. It is refusing entry into Italian ports of “rescue” ships that pick up migrants at sea and carry them to Europe.
  • Slovenia‘s newly-elected government is now anti-migrant.
  • Sweden has a party, the anti-migrant Sweden Democrats, which, according to the polls, is almost even with the ruling Social Democrats ahead of September 2018’s elections.

Victims? Who are the victims? Really?

It’s the migrants first of all. The United States and NATO, either in concert or with the help of the alliance’s member states individually, have destroyed most of South and Southwest Asia and North Africa. Their reasons were supposedly noble–they had a “responsibility to protect” people in those regions! However, houses, factories, shops, schools, waterworks, and sewage treatment plants disappeared under a hail of bombs, drone strikes, and artillery shells. And the jobless, penniless people were herded, by shadowy individuals and organizations, into Europe. Mirabile dictu, interpreters were found, wifi networks set up, SmartPhones provided, and smugglers located.

For the most part, Europe has little connection to the migrants’ home countries. There’s no pool of Dari speakers or Arabic linguists or Pushtun talkers. The Continent lacks any cross-cultural contacts with the migrants’ lands, other than, perhaps, through restaurants. So, ultimately, the aliens must adapt to Europe, rather than the other way round. In a way, it’s cultural imperialism. The newcomer must adapt to the new life he’s been forced into and give up his old language and culture. Simultaneously, he must deal with a native population that resents his being pushed upon them and given support and benefits out of their tax money–without any agreement to do so.

Muslims in particular are disadvantaged. First, they are seen as practitioners of a disfavored religion (even though, like Christianity and Judaism, it acknowledges one God and has a long-established code of righteous conduct). Second, as Muslim friends here in the United States have told this writer, it’s difficult belonging to a minority religion that imposes a strict fast during the holy month of Ramadan. Americans, and, increasingly, Europeans eat a lot between meals. In Southwest Germany, there is the long-established Second Breakfast, and in Austria, the late afternoon snack. Third, there are jobs closed to devout Muslims: work in bars and nightclubs, serving meals of forbidden pork in restaurants, brewing beer and distilling spirits. Fourth, Muslim friends have told the author that celebrating major religious feasts is much more enjoyable when there is a large gathering of family and friends.

And the natives in Europe and America are also victims. Under the pain of being denounced as insensitive, right-wing, neo-Nazis, they are required to welcome and work with the aliens. Questioning their ability to speak the local language, adapt to well-established customs, or absorb the mores of the region is strictly forbidden. They are taxed to support the alien, they are fined or jailed if they are too critical of them, and they lose housing to them. They’ve had their societies turned upside down and, in Germany, women are told to change their style of dress and go out only with a male escort. They (and some of the migrants) are victims of crime that appears to show no abatement, recent examples coming from Germany in 2018: 200 migrants smashed police cars transporting an illegal alien to deportation; a man from Niger, whose asylee status had been denied, fatally stabbed his wife and decapitated one of their children in a subway station; a Tunisian man, a migrant, was arrested for trying to produce the deadly poison ricin.

Solutions. If Any? How do we solve this? How do we change things? 1. Stop the wars generating migrants. 2. End the herding from their home countries to the United States, Canada, and Europe. 3. Rebuild their destroyed nations. 4. Help them go home.

But that costs money!!! Yes, it does. And the logical source for the funds to do all of this is the military budgets for NATO’s member states. In 2016, European NATO countries spent US$254 billion on their armed forces. The United States spent US$611 billion, the highest expenditure of any country in the world.

Which is cheaper? Continued social disorder and uproar or a reduction in the Western War Machine’s funding? Do we look to the future or do we look to the past? As one German friend noted, failure to deal with the migrant issue demonstrates Albert Einstein’s belief that stupidity is as endless as the universe.

*

J. Michael Springmann is an attorney, author, political commentator, and former diplomat. He has written Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World and a second book, Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos? Merkel’s Migrant Bomb. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

First published by Global Research in March 2015

The Philippines has an estimated $840 billion worth of untapped mineral resources, according to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Philippines which is responsible for giving permits to mining companies to do exploration of mining areas and to commence operation. Small-scale mining industries have contributed to national revenues.

A big problem ensued with the signing of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 authored by then Senator Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which allowed 100% ownership of the claimed mining land area and minerals by foreign multinational mining corporations. Large-scale mining is destructive as it uses the method of open-pit mining which entails clearing thousands of hectares of rainforests and agricultural lands, deep excavations to extract minerals, the use of toxic heavy metals and chemicals to process mineral ores, and the consumption of millions of liters of water – all of which negatively impact the lives of the Filipino citizens with the grave disregard for their right to health, life, food security, livelihood, and a clean environment. This is the social justice issue of large-scale mining. Large-scale mining is against the sustainability of the environment and of the people’s cultural identity and quality of life. 

Corporate mining permits multiplied under the administration of President Benigno Aquino III in the belief that large-scale mining tax revenues would spur economic growth. However, environmentalists blame the liberalized mining sector for the greater destructiveness of natural disasters in the country. According to Marya Salamat of bulatlat.com (2013), environmentalists blame mining companies for contributing to massive siltation of the rivers, poisoning the waterways and agricultural fields with toxic chemicals and rendering communities more vulnerable to flooding. At the same time, local communities affected by mining bewail the loss of their former livelihood in fishing, agriculture and forestry, “as some of them were forced to become mineworkers instead, or service workers for those at work in the mines, including some women becoming prostitutes, reportedly driven to it by the combination of their family’s loss of land, livelihood and influx of men working in the mines” (Salamat, 2013).

Tampakan Mining (Mining Journal)

Tampakan Mining (Source: Mining Journal)

If realized, the proposed Tampacan copper-gold mining project by the Sagitarrius Mining Incorporated in South Cotabato, Mindanao would be the largest open-pit mine in the Philippines and one of the largest of its kind in the world. The open pit would reach an extent of 500 ha and a depth of 785 meters while the topsoil stockpile would cover an area of 5 ha and the pit ore stockpile 49 ha, according to conservation and development consultants like Clive Montgomery Wicks. On February 2013, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau under the Department of Enviroment and Natural Resources issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate to SMI. But various civil society groups and church leaders strongly oppose the Tampacan copper-gold mining project because of its disastrous impact to the environment, to the watershed area spanning three major rivers in Mindanao, to agricultural production, and to the displacement of 5,000 people living in the area where the proposed mining will be done.

Source: Mining.com

The sad and unfortunate concomitant to the struggle against the Tampacan copper-gold mining project is the lack of in-depth analysis of most mainstream media news on the issue, and instead of providing an assessment of the impacts vis-à-vis the alleged benefits from the mining project, tend to provide news on the corporate affairs of the multinational corporations which have interest on this project. In contrast, alternative media like bulatlat.com and davaotoday.com provide news reports with in-depth analysis of the mining situation and show the alternative viewpoints of those who are against the mining project. In 2012, Bulatlat.com reported on what has not been reported by the mainstream media: the massacre of a B’laan family whose head declared a tribal war against SMI. Davaotoday.com reported on the Catholic Bishops’ plea to President Aquino to stop the Tampacan mining project on strong moral grounds. Civil society groups which are against the Tampacan mining project such as Kalikasan Peoples’ Network for the Environment, Alternative Forum for Research in Mindanao, Center for Environmental Concerns, and international non-profit, cause-oriented organizations such as War on Want, London Mining Network, Banktrack, and Indigenous Peoples’ Link have posted press releases, investigative reports, and analytical articles on the destructive impact of the proposed large-scale mining project and expressed a clear, strong opposition to the proposed mining project.

The proposed mining project straddles the jurisdiction of two regions, four provinces, four municipalities, and nine barangays. If this mining project will be realized, its environmental cost and negative impact to the livelihood, health, and quality of life of the Filipinos living in affected areas in four provinces of Mindanao (South Cotabato, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat, and Davao del Sur) will be immense and incalculable, to say the least. The open pit will not be back filled, and according to Dr. Godilano (2012), the billions of tons of acid forming waste rocks and mine tailings that the mining corporation will leave behind will require management in perpetuity. According to the Catholic Church in South Cotabato, if Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (SMI) will be allowed to operate, it will destroy the environment by massive clearing of 6,935 hectares of rainforests and agricultural lands, contaminate three major watersheds (ridge-rivers-reef) for five provinces, and dry up the irrigation systems in the lowlands and the aquifers in General Santos and Koronadal City. It will result to the dislocation of almost 6,000 surface dwellers, mostly B’laans, from their ancestral land, and has actually led to human rights violations with the killing of anti-mining indigenous people and activists and the restrictions of access by the indigenous people to the forests and agricultural lands claimed by the mining corporations.

In addition, it impacts negatively the people’s health, safety, food security and right to life and livelihood by the constant risk of breakage of the dam that will hold the mine tailings and the contamination of water, soil, and air by toxic chemicals and heavy metals that will be used for processing the mineral ores from the mining area in Tampacan. The added risk is that the Tampacan mining area sits on fault lines, which increases the risk of seismic activity that poses threat to the spilling of the dam for mine tailings and the contamination of flood waters with toxic mine wastes due to the deforestation of the area, soil erosion, and siltation of rivers, which further aggravate and are aggravated by climate change.

Because of these huge environmental, social, and cultural costs, allowing the SMI to operate tantamounts to a betrayal of the Philippine nation and of the Filipino people because no amount of taxes that will be obtained from SMI can compensate for the environmental destruction and long-term negative impacts on the health, food security, and right to life and livelihood of the Filipinos in five provinces of Mindanao- South Cotabato, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur, and Maguindanao – and the cities of General Santos and Koronadal. The promises made by the mining company to provide scholarships and provide livelihood to the affected people, especially the indigenous B’laan tribe, are mere palliatives in comparison to the massive environmental destruction and long-term negative impacts of this proposed large-scale mining project.

The government must listen to the cry of the Filipino people to stop the Tampacan mining project. The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 which allows for 100% ownership of mineral ores and land covered in the claimed mining area should be repealed because it is against national sovereignty and against sustainability of the environment, cultural identity, quality of life, and livelihood of the Filipinos that will be most affected by the large-scale mining projects. President Benigno Aquino should learn to adopt the principles of sustainable development, repudiate neoliberal economics which is pro-corporate profits and breeds grave inequities in the world, and repudiate the impositions of World Bank, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund.

Citizens who understand the situation must shout together the protest against the evils of neo-liberal capitalism exemplified by large-scale, corporate mining and must put a stop to the desecration of nature and the violation of human rights of the poor and the indigenous peoples of the Philippines and other developing countries.

Professor Belinda Espiritu is the Coordinator of the Mass Communication Program at the University of the Philippines, Cebu. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Destructive Impacts of Corporate Mining in the Philippines: The Tampacan Copper-Gold Mining Project in Mindanao

The Next Step: The Campaign for Julian Assange

June 26th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The modern detainee in a political sense has to be understood in the abstract.  Those who take to feats of hacking, publishing and articulating positions on the issue of institutional secrets have become something of a species, not as rare as they once more, but no less remarkable for that fact.  And what a hounded species at that. 

Across the globe prisons are now peopled by traditional, and in some instances unconventional journalists, who have found themselves in the possession of classified material.  In one specific instance, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks stands tall, albeit in limited space, within the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Unlawful imprisonment and arbitrary detention are treated by black letter lawyers with a crystal clarity that would disturb novelists and lay people; lawyers, in turn, are sometimes disturbed by the inventive ways a novelist, or litterateur type, might interpret detention.  The case of Assange, shacked and hemmed in a small space at the mercy of his hosts who did grant him asylum, then citizenship, has never been an easy one to explain to either.  Ever murky, and ever nebulous, his background and circumstances inspires polarity rather than accord.

What matters on the record is that Assange has been deemed by the United Nations Working Group in Arbitrary Detention to be living under conditions that amount to arbitrary detention.  He is not, as the then foreign secretary of the UK, Philip Hammond claimed in 2016, “a fugitive from justice, voluntarily hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy.”  To claim such volition is tantamount to telling a person overlooking the precipice that he has a choice on whether to step out and encounter it.

The whole issue with his existence revolves, with no small amount of precariousness, on his political publishing activity.  He is no mere ordinary fugitive, but a muckracker extraordinaire who must tolerate the hospitality of another state even as he breathes air into a moribund fourth estate.  He is the helmsman of a publishing outfit that has blended the nature of journalism with the biting effect of politics, and duly condemned for doing so.

Given such behaviour, it was bound to irk those who have been good enough to accept his tenancy. The tenancy of the political asylum seeker is ever finite, vulnerable to mutability and abridgment.  Assange’s Ecuadorean hosts have made no secret that they would rather wish him to keep quiet in his not so gilded cage, restraining himself from what they consider undue meddling.  To do so entails targeting his lifeblood: communications through the Internet itself, and those treasured discussions he shares with visitors of various standings in the order of celebrity.

On March 27, his hosts decided to cut off internet access to the WikiLeaks publisher-in-chief. Jamming devices were also put in place in case Assange got any other ideas.  Till that point, Assange had been busy defending Catalan separatist politician Carles Puigdemont against Germany’s detention of him, in the process decrying the European Arrest Warrant, while also questioning the decisions made by several European states to expel Russian diplomats in the wake of the poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.  It was just that sort of business that irked the new guard in Ecuador, keen on reining in such enthusiastic interventions.

What seems to be at play here is a breaking of spirit, a battle of attrition that may well push Assange into the arms of the British authorities who insist that he will be prosecuted for violating his bail conditions the moment he steps out of the embassy.  This, notwithstanding that the original violation touched upon extradition matters to Sweden that have run their course.

Former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa had denounced his country’s recent treatment of Assange.  In May, Correa told The Intercept how preventing Assange from receiving visitors at the embassy constituted a form of torture. Ecuador was no longer maintaining “normal sovereign relations with the American government – just submission.”

Times, and the fashion, has certainly changed at the London embassy.  Current President Lenín Moreno announced in May that his country had “recently signed an agreement focused on security cooperation [with the US] which implies sharing information, intelligence topics and experiences in the fight against illegal drug trafficking and fighting transnational organized crime.” Tectonic plates, and alliances, are shifting, and activist publishers are not de rigueur.

The recent round of lamentations reflect upon the complicity and collusion not just amongst the authorities but within a defanged media establishment keen to make Assange disappear. “This quest to silence free speech and neuter a free press,” suggests Teodrose Fikre, “is a bipartisan campaign and a bilateral initiative.”

There has been little or no uproar in media circles over the 6-year period of Assange’s Ecuadorean stay, surmises Paul Craig Roberts, because the media itself has changed.  The doddering Gray Lady (The New York Times for others), had greyed so significantly under the Bush administration it had lost its teeth, “allowing Bush to be re-elected without controversy and allowing the government time to legalize the spying on an ex post facto basis.”

Both President Donald J. Trump and Russia provide the current twin pillars of journalistic escapism and paranoia.  Be it Democrat or Republican in the US, the WikiLeaks figure remains very wanted personifying the bridge that links current political behemoths.  For the veteran Australian journalist John Pilger,

“The fakery of Russia-gate, the collusion of a corrupt media and the shame of a legal system that pursues truth-tellers have not been able to hold back the raw truth of WikiLeaks revelations.”

Such rawness persists, as does the near fanatical attempt to break the will of a man who has every entitlement to feel that he is losing his mind.

*

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

Free Julian Assange!

June 26th, 2018 by Mairead Maguire

Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire called on UK government to free Julian Assange and end their cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which amounts to torture, as defined by international law. She said,

“I know of no other country where an asylee  is held with no sunlight, no exercise, no visitors, no computer, no phone calls, yet all this is happening in the heart of London at the Ecuadorian Embassy to an innocent man, Julian Assange, now in his 8th year of illegal and  arbitrary detention by the United Kingdom government. “

*

We are here this evening to stand in solidarity with our friend Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, of WikiLeaks. Because of WikiLeaks reporting of acts during US/NATO’s illegal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and its highlighting of corruption by USA/CIA and corporate power, and continuing his fight in disclosing the links between the great private corporations and government agencies, Julian Assange has been threatened by high profile USA citizens, and a Grand Jury has been set up in American to try Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, for their publications.

For this, he is being persecuted and deprived of his right to liberty, human rights, etc. Six years ago Julian Assange, aware of these extradition plans of America,  sought asylum in the  Ecuadorian Embassy,  in London, where he remains today. (He is now in his 8th year of Arbitrary Detention in the U.K.) Although Mr. Assange’s conditions were already harsh, having no sunlight or outdoor exercise since June 2012, his situation has gotten worse since March 2018 when the Ecuadorian Government (after a visit by UK/USA officials to Ecuador) imposed conditions that are like indefinite confinement.

He is prevented from having visitors, receiving telephone calls, no internet, emails, or other electronic communications. He is unable to speak to his lawyers except in person and his   physical health, according to doctors, continues to deteriorate. Julian Assange is unable to walk outside the Ecuadorian embassy, as he has been told by UK government, he will be arrested by the British Metropolitan Police. He has asked UK Gov. to give assurances he will not be   handed over to American Security for extradition to America, to face a grand Jury, where he could be tortured and face life imprisonment, but UK government, refuse to give him assurance of this. A UN working group on Arbitrary detention has deemed this an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty and a grave human rights abuse which should be ended immediately, and for which, according to this UN Group on Arbitrary detention, he ought to be compensated by Britain and Sweden.

We should all be  deeply concerned at attacks by Governments, on ’truth’ tellers and ‚’whistle-blowers’ as this is a  danger posed to our democracy, security and good Governance when ‚whistle-blowers’ are thus persecuted. These matters of removal of basic rights of speech, information, liberty, persecution and silencing of journalists, etc., are of fundamental importance to all of us who believe in a free and democratic society.

We have a duty to ensure Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen, is treated no less favourably than UK citizens detained for similar ofences. British citizens enjoy the protection of the UK Human Rights Act l998 and the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantee their right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, received and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ and to do so, without interference by public authority’; He also has a right to be presumed innocent; and a right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

We have all a responsibility as Governments and as concerned Citizens to ensure that Mr. Assange’s treatment by UK Authorities accords to these standards. As Julian Assange is an Australian Citizen and they have a responsibility to see their Citizens are protected and Rights upheld, we call upon the Australian Government to work for Julian’s Freedom and safe return to Australia.   Also we call upon the UK Government to do the utmost to restore Julian Assange’s human rights and the free and lawful operation of WikiLeaks.  Specifically, we ask UK government to:

  1. Ensure Julian Assange is guaranteed full and timely access to all necessary medical and dental care;
  2. Request and defend his right to receive information and impart information freely without interference by any public authority;
  3. Defend Mr. Assange at home and abroad and object to threats levelled against Mr. Assange by high-profile US citizens and others;
  4. Strongly oppose and refuse, any application to have Mr. Assange extradited to the United States where it is unlikely he would receive a fair trial;
  5. Facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner;
  6. Compensate him for his arbitrary detention (also the Swedish government should compensate him for his arbitrary detention).

I would like to make a special appeal to the American President Donald Trump and his Government, to close down this Grand Jury which has been established to try Julian Assange and WikiLeaks based on their publications, and confirm the US Government will not extradite him to America, but recognize that he too, (as any American Citizen, ) has a right to have his rights protected under law.

This impasse could be resolved through Mediation between Ecuadorian Embassy and the UK Government. A text which includes a confirmation that Julian Assange will not be extradited to America and his Civil and Political Rights will be upheld by all Parties, would mean Freedom for Julian Assange. The case of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is deeply important to not only journalists, media, etc., but is of fundamental importance to a free and democratic society for us all.

We owe Julian Assange our deepest thanks for his courage and being prepared to tell the truth even at risk of his own liberty and life. We can all, especially the media, and Governments, refuse to  be silent in face of such injustice and persecution of a man whose only crime was telling the truth to stop the wars and save lives. We can refuse to be silent and thus complicit in the face of injustice and work together until Julian Assange can return in safety and freedom to be with his family in Australia, or whatever country he chooses as a free citizen of the world.

.

.

.

*

Mairead Corrigan Maguire, co-founder of Peace People, is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. She won the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize for her work for peace in Northern Ireland. Her book The Vision of Peace (edited by John Dear, with a foreword by Desmond Tutu and a preface by the Dalai Lama) is available from www.wipfandstock.com. She lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland. See: www.peacepeople.com.

On June 25th, U.S.-aided fighters in southern Syria were fleeing from the Syrian Government’s Army, southward toward U.S.-allied Israeli-controlled areas in the Golan Heights and toward America’s ally Jordan; and, according to the AP’s news-report, “The majority of these rebels in southern Syria were U.S- and Jordan backed, although some local al-Qaida-linked militants still operate there.” The U.S. has relied heavily upon Al Qaeda in southern Syria, to lead the jihadist groups against Syria’s Government, ever since 2012.

The expectation when Donald Trump came into the U.S. White House had been that his predecessor’s war to conquer Syria or at least to seize territory there, would end. But Trump instead continues that invasion and occupation of Syria, and he even does so under the very same excuse that Obama had used, which is the ‘humanitarian’ one, of protecting people against Syria’s Government and against ISIS, which is one of the dozens of fundamentalist-Sunni ‘rebel’ groups of jihadists (ISIS and Al Qaeda being only the most famous ones) who have been brought in from all over the world and financed mainly by the Sauds, and armed and advised mainly by the Americans. They’ve been fighting to overthrow Syria’s Government. The rulers of the U.S., who bombed Iraq and Libya to hell and have done the same to Syria and now also to Yemen, say that their motivation is ‘humanitarian’. Even George W. Bush did, when he invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 (but he mainly gave the reason, “Saddam’s WMD,” which didn’t any longer even exist). Somehow, most Americans think that this Government in Washington represents them; but I am an American and I don’t think that the U.S. Government represents the American people. It certainly doesn’t represent us in Syria.

However, perhaps now, the actual end of the invasion of Syria is, at last, in sight. The commentator “bernhard,” who blogs on geostrategy at his “Moon of Alabama” site, headlined on June 22nd, “Syria – Damascus And Its Allies Prepare To Remove U.S. Forces From Al-Tanf”, and he (or she) explained the reasons why the U.S. invaders are now clearly in an untenable military-strategic position in the Syrian war. Basically, it’s because, as he(she) states at the end, “The al-Tanf position [U.S. military base in Syria] is indefensible against any larger force. The U.S. forces there can still move out without a fight. If they do not leave voluntarily, force will be used to remove them.” On the other hand, a year ago, on 29 June 2017, he/she had headlined “U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up on Occupying South East Syria”, and that turned out to have been at least a year premature.

The knowledgeable Middle-Eastern commentator, Abdel Bari Atwan, headlined, also on June 22nd, “Syria’s Southern Front: The army is determined to retake the area. Israel is determined to prevent it.” Atwan stated:

“More than 40,000 soldiers have been deployed [by Syria’s Government] in preparation for the southern offensive [by the U.S. and its allies], according to reliable sources, suggesting that a decisive showdown is imminent. It is doubtful that the Syrian army, feeling confident after the battle for Ghouta, would launch such an operation without a green light from its Russian ally, as has been the case in similar instances. This follows the dead-end reached in negotiations between Russia and the US aimed at achieving an acceptable settlement, due to the intransigence of the armed groups, their insistence on all their conditions being met and the support some receive from Israel. It is not in Israel’s interest for these groups to evacuate as their counterparts did in Eastern Ghouta and Aleppo and for the Syrian army to retake control.”

He seems to view Israel as leading the U.S. operation there. This is conceivably true, because everything that Trump has thus far done in the Middle East has served both Israel’s Government and Saudi Arabia’s Government, and both of those Governments have almost identical objectives there. Conceivably, those two Governments together determine what the U.S. Government’s policies in the Middle East will be. And Israel has taken the initiative in Syria, just as the Sauds have taken the initiative in Yemen. But both Israel and the Sauds as well as the U.S. regime want the Saud family to control Syria; in fact, at the U.N.’s peace-talks, in which the “High Negotiations Committee” negotiates against the Syrian Government, to replace Syria’s Government, the Saud family itself selects who will and who won’t be members of the High Negotiations Committee: the ‘Syrian opposition’ there represents actually the Saud family. (See more on that here.) So, actually, both Israel’s rulers and America’s rulers are the Saud family’s agents in Syria; they front for the Sauds, regarding Syria-policy.

Atwan concludes:

“Syria continues to defy those who have spent the past seven years conspiring against it. This time, eyes should be turned to its south, where new and shocking surprises may be in store for the Israelis and their allies.”

The U.S. military base at al-Tanf, in Syria on Jordan’s border, is America’s main training-base for the Saudi-allied ‘rebels’, and has been key to the fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic, outright jihadist, south-Syrian half, of America’s boots-on-the-ground effort, to seize Syria, or at least to seize territory (especially oil-producing territory, around Deir Ezzor) in Syria. For decades, the jihadists (supporters of the Sauds’ fundamentalist Sunni form of Islam) have been hoping to oust Syria’s ideologically non-sectarian, decidedly secular, Government, and replace it with a Sunni Sharia-law regime. Trump’s troops even have been secretly arming ISIS to overthrow the Government. That plan will be crashing down if these ‘rebels’ in Syria’s south fail.

Without this jihadist operation in Syria’s south, all that will remain of the U.S.-led invasion-occupation operation will be the northern part, which relies instead upon anti-(Syrian)-Government Kurds as the U.S. regime’s boots-on-the-ground proxy forces to seize the northern portion of Syrian territory. So, it’s the Sauds’ jihadists in the south, and the Americans’ Kurdish-independence fighters in the north — a pincer between the two, for the U.S. alliance to take all of Syria. But there is increasing doubt that the U.S. coalition will be able to seize and hold either portion, or, ultimately, any part, of Syria. 

In other words: if the southern invaders fail, then Syria’s oil-producing region, around the city of Deir Ezzor, now contested between these jihadists and Syria’s Government, will no longer be in play, and the only function which land-seizure by the U.S. would even possibly serve for the U.S. and its allies, would be for pipeline-construction, in order for oil and gas from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and possibly other fundamentalist-Sunni-owned countries, to become pipelined through Syria into Europe, so as to replace Russia as the EU’s main energy-source. But Turkey’s Government won’t permit a Syrian Kurdistan, any more than Iraq had permitted success of the U.S. regime’s plan for an Iraqi Kurdistan (around Mosul). The big policy-difference between the Turkish Government and the American Government has long been over the U.S. aristocracy’s (along with Israel’s aristocracy’s) desire to use a Kurdistan so as to break up the non-Saudi Arabic countries (such as Syria) in order for Saudi oil and maybe Qatar’s (the Thani family’s) gas to increase market-share in Europe, so as to decrease Russia’s market-share there. 

Consequently, (unless ‘bernhard’ turns out to be wrong about al-Tanf, that “Damascus And Its Allies Prepare To Remove U.S. Forces From Al-Tanf”), Donald Trump finally will have to do what he had always been promising to do: exit from Syria — let the Syrians control Syria. The long effort by the aristocracies of U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel — to supplant Russia and its allies, as suppliers of energy and of energy-related services (such as pipeline-construction) to and in the world’s largest energy-market, the EU — will have to be abandoned, at least until the CIA and other agencies of the U.S. aristocracy can come up with a different way to squeeze Russia out of the European market. (The U.S. already has been successful at reducing the effectiveness of Russia’s gas-pipelines into the EU through Ukraine.) It’s not necessarily the end for the American plan, however: a new opportunity (perhaps yet another ‘Arab Spring’) could emerge — they’ve been at this ever since the CIA’s second coup, which occurred in Syria in 1949, when they took over Syria but their barbarism caused Syria’s generals to restore in 1955 the democratically elected Syrian President, whom President Truman’s people had assisted some of Syria’s generals to overthrow in 1949. 

As soon as FDR died in 1945, the imperialist faction in the United States — which has controlled the Republican Party ever since 1865 — quickly came to control also the Democratic Party; so, now, both of America’s political Parties are determined that the U.S. aristocracy will control the entire world. World peace is the last thing they want, and if they win it, that would be only ‘peace’ by force — not democracy.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

On June 23, militants in 11 settlements in southern Syria surrendered to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and declared their readiness to fight ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra), the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement on June 24.

According to pro-government sources, about 900 members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) joined the SAA.

On June 24, the  SAA and the Tiger Forces liberated the villages of Hawsh Hammad and Jaddel and entered the village of Busra al-Harir northeast of the city of Daraa. According to pro-militant sources, this advance was supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces.

On June 25, clashes in the area continued.

It is interesting to note that on June 23 the US Embassy in Amman released a statement saying that militants in southern Syria should not count on a US military intervention in the situation in the area when they make decisions influencing their future.

The statement comes amid reports that some FSA groups in the province of Daraa have resumed negotiations with the Syrian government and Russia on a reconciliation agreement that would allow Damascus to restore its control of the area by a peaceful solution.

On June 24, the SAA repelled an attack of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near the village of Zlin in northern Hama. However, after the attack the situation in the area remained relatively calm.

Tensions between the Thuwar al-Raqqa Brigade and the rest of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have erupted in the city of Raqqah. The Thuwar al-Raqqa Brigade says that the SDF’s security forces, Asayish, have surrendered its HQs and have attacked some of its members.

The current situation in Raqqah is another result of the tensions growing between the Kurdish-dominated SDF and local Arab factions formally operating within the same group.

At the same time, the SDF has captured a large chunk of area near the border with Iraq reaching the Tell Safouk border crossing. Thus, the group achieved a key goal of its operation in southern al-Hasakah.

According to pro-Kurdish sources, now the group is going to focus on combating ISIS in the Euphrates Valley and in the area north of al-Bukamal.

*

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront,

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH,

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, 

ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Government Troops Make Rapid Gains in Southern Syria against US Backed Rebels
  • Tags:

Trump Bashing Ignores What’s Most Important

June 25th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. Trump is a rogue actor serving his privileged class exclusively at the expense of most others, the nation’s least advantaged harmed most by his hostile agenda, besides unspeakable horrors inflicted on countless millions abroad.

Every popular promise he made was breached straightaway in office. Instead of draining the swamp, he filled it with a rogue’s gallery of warmongering neocons (including John Bolton), Wall Street predators, hawkish generals, and billionaires.

His rage for endless wars of aggression is insatiable, terror-bombing one nation after another – at a pace far exceeding the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama in munitions used, civilians in harm’s way massacred in cold blood by the thousands.

The media reporting nothing, suppressing his high crimes while bashing him in other ways.

He’s part of the dirty system in private and public life, as president presiding over fantasy democracy in America.

Things are far worse than ever since the neoliberal 90s, notably post-9/11. The mother of all false flags changed everything. The Trump regime exceeds the wickedness of his predecessors.

Criticizing his disgraceful mistreatment of unwanted alien children is one among a long list of policies showing indifference to equity and justice for all, along with the highest of high crimes against humanity at home and abroad.

Last week, Ralph Nader tweeted:

“Would be nice if Laura Bush and Michelle Obama had expressed similar heartfelt concern for the tens of thousands of children killed or seriously maimed by the wars of their husbands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere” as they do for mistreated alien children unwanted in America.

Just societies and leadership would never tolerate outrageously separating children from parents, traumatizing kids, in some cases doing irreparable damage.

Yet it doesn’t rise to the level of naked aggression, mass slaughter and destruction, smashing nations to own them, wanting planet earth colonized, seeking New World Order societies comprised of rulers and serfs, no middle class, no democratic rights, no justice, perpetual wars and chaos instead, US-dominated NATO operating as a global killing machine – Orwell’s “vision of the future (with) a boot stamping on a human face forever,” a world unsafe and unfit to live in anywhere.

Trump’s “zero tolerance” extends far beyond his deplorable immigration policy. Far worse is his intolerance of democratic values, rule of law principles, peace and stability, along with fundamental human and civil rights – an agenda only a despot could love.

He’s indifferent to poverty, hunger, homelessness,  unemployment, underemployment.

He’s commander-in-chief of the nation’s military with his finger on the nuclear trigger he may be itching to squeeze – mindless of the horror of nuclear immolation.

He supports virtually every global tinpot despot allied with Washington’s imperial agenda, serving its interests, sovereign independent nations targeted for regime change by naked aggression, color revolutions or coup d’etats.

Instead of improved relations with Russia, they’re more dismal than ever.

Irreconcilable differences separate the geopolitical agendas of both countries, resolving them unattainable because bipartisan US hardliners want regime change, not mutual cooperation.

US policy toward Israel was always one-sided. Throughout its deplorable history, nothing was ever done by Washington to support and insure fundamental Palestinian rights, always treating them unfairly and unjustly – never holding the Jewish state accountable for its high crimes.

Trump elevated their mistreatment to a higher level, supporting apartheid ruthlessness, tacitly endorsing occupation harshness and unlimited settlement construction on stolen Palestinian land, opposing diaspora Palestinians’ legal right of return, wrongfully moving Washington’s embassy to Jerusalem, an international city not recognized as Israel’s capital by the UN and most nations.

At the same time, his regime endorses Israeli human rights abuses too egregious to ignore, wrongfully blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes committed against them.

Trump’s great GOP tax cut heist benefitted corporate predators and high-net-worth households exclusively at the expense of social justice erosion to help pay for it.

His inaugural address promise “to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people” was a bald-faced lie, serving rich and powerful ones alone from day one in office.

He’s hostile to ecosanity, serving Big Oil and other cororate polluters, turning a blind eye to their worst offenses.

Straightaway in office, he proved he’s just another dirty politician, waging war OF terror, not on it, supporting ISIS and likeminded jihadists, not combatting them.

His America first agenda is all about bullying, pressuring and bribing other nations to bend to Washington’s will economically, politically, militarily and in trade relations.

It’s about enriching corporate predators and high-net-worth Americans more than already. It’s about serving privileged interests at the expense of others.

It’s about neocon extremists running things, federal courts stacked with hard-right ideologues serving their interests.

It’s about exploiting ordinary people over government serving everyone everywhere equitably. It’s about punishing anyone unwilling to go along with an agenda no one should accept.

Trump’s National Security Strategy is a modern-day version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, a manifesto for endless wars of aggression, his regime heading America closer to full-blown tyranny than already.

He disgraces the office he holds, doing it in record time compared to his predecessors. With two-and-half years before another presidential election, he’s free to rape, ravage, plunder and destroy much more than already.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Featured image is from TruePublica.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Trump Bashing Ignores What’s Most Important

For much of the year, independent media [including Global Research] has felt the sting of increased social media censorship, as the “revolving door” between U.S. intelligence agencies and social-media companies has manifested in a crackdown on news that challenges official government narratives.

With many notable independent news websites having shut down since then as a result, those that remain afloat are being censored like never before, with social media traffic from Facebook and Twitter completely cut off in some cases. Among such websites, social media censorship by the most popular social networks is now widely regarded to be the worst it has ever been – a chilling reality for any who seek fact-based perspectives on major world events that differ from those to be found on well-known corporate-media outlets that consistently toe the government line.

Last August, MintPress reported that a new Google algorithm targeting “fake news” had quashed traffic to many independent news and advocacy sites, with sites such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Now, and WikiLeaks, seeing their returns from Google searches experience massive drops. The World Socialist Website, one of the affected pages, reported a 67 percent decrease in Google returns while MintPress experienced an even larger decrease of 76 percent in Google search returns. The new algorithm targeted online publications on both sides of the political spectrum critical of U.S. imperialism, foreign wars, and other long-standing government policies.

Now, less than a year later, the situation has become even more dire. Several independent media pages have reported that their social media traffic has sharply declined since March and – in some cases – stopped almost entirely since June began. For instance, independent media website Antimedia – a page with over 2 million likes and follows – saw its traffic drop from around 150,000 page views per day earlier this month to around 12,000 as of this week. As a reference, this time last year Antimedia’s traffic stood at nearly 300,000 a day.

Other pages, particularly those that promote natural-health news along with political news, have seen their pages deleted without warning by Facebook as recently as earlier this week. One such page, Collectively Conscious, saw its Facebook page with over 900,000 likes and follows deleted without warning after Facebook said the page “violated its terms of use agreement” but did not state which terms had been violated. Other similar pages, such as Nikola Tesla and Earth We Are One, were likewise suddenly deleted without explanation.

Other pages, such as the Free Thought Project, have been flagged as “fake news” by Facebook “fact checking” partner organizations, like the Associated Press and Snopes. In one recent case, a story published by the Free Thought Project was flagged as “false” by the Associated Press. That story, which detailed the documented case of Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) being forcibly removed from a DHS migrant detention center that had once been a Walmart, was marked false because the Associated Press asserted that the article made the claim that Walmart was housing immigrants for DHS. However, the article does not make the claim, instead accurately noting that the facility used to be a Walmart.

In a troubling turn of events, pages that shared that very story are now being punished by Facebook for helping disseminate “false news.” The Mind Unleashed, which has 8.8 million likes and follows, was warned that it would have its reach reduced for this “offense,” and that the reduction in the page’s reach would only increase with the number of offenses after it shared the Free Thought Project story on the detention center.

At MintPress News, the story is similar. While the MintPress Facebook and Twitter pages remain up and no notices warning of their imminent deletion have yet been received, traffic from social media has reached an all-time low, as the site’s average traffic of around 70,000 unique visitors last January has now dropped to around 4,000 – a decrease of around 94 percent. On Tuesday, social media traffic to MintPress stopped entirely, as it did for several other independent media sites like Antimedia.

Broad-brush censorship: an overreaction on steroids

Given what has been experienced by several independent media sites in recent months, it seems that several known initiatives aimed at censoring content on social media have now taken full effect after being announced earlier this year.

Those initiatives — particularly those being implemented by Facebook, Twitter and Google — first came to light during a Senate hearing held earlier this year in January. During their testimony, representatives from Facebook detailed that it would employ a team of 20,000 new employees by the end of the year who would “assess potentially violating content” and “fake news” uploaded by the platform’s users. Monika Bickert, head of Global Policy Management at Facebook, told lawmakers at the time that “former intelligence and law-enforcement officials and prosecutors who worked in the area of counterterrorism” are among the members of that new “team” at Facebook.

In the months since, Facebook’s censorship of independent content has continued to spin out of control, with the site prioritizing “trustworthy” sites even though Facebook has not stated how a site’s “trustworthiness” is determined. The site’s censorship efforts, however, reached a crescendo when it was announced last month that the social media giant would team up with the war-loving, Washington-based think tank, The Atlantic Council, in order to “combat election-related propaganda and misinformation from proliferating” on the social media site.

The Atlantic Council is funded by the country’s top weapons manufacturers – Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing – as well as by NATO and the United Arab Emirates, currently responsible for an offensive on a port in Yemen, slammed by the UN and human rights groups, that threatens to lead to the death of some 18.5 million civilians in the war-torn country. The Atlantic Council’s conflicts of interest with companies, organizations, and countries that benefit from war have raised concern among anti-war news sites that the think tank’s partnership with Facebook will negatively affect their own presence on social media.

While many thought that social media censorship on the most commonly used platforms could not get much worse after Facebook’s partnership with the Atlantic Council, the upcoming vote by the European Union on the controversial measure known as Article 13 could soon change that. The proposed law, if approved, would require platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and others to scan user-uploaded content before it is shown online and take down material that “could be stolen” or infringe on existing copyrights.

Several prominent figures, including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, warned the EU Parliament that the measure would be “an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.”

The current censorship of social media is undeniably the worst it has ever been. However, it is unlikely that this troubling trend will get better anytime soon. Instead, it likely to get much worse. If you value fact-based news content that challenges the powerful and scrutinizes official narratives, now is the time to sign up for mailing lists, Steemit and other alternatives that will allow you to continue to receive the content you enjoy amid the increasingly bleak future of news shared via social media.

*

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

In general, the question of immigration is the most misunderstood social issue in the Western world. Ironically, the 1% and powerful elite are the only section of society that has a clear understanding of this social phenomenon.

Historically the wealthy 1% of “advanced” countries want both legal and undocumented immigrants in their countries. They look at immigrants not as human beings but as a cheap money making machine. This is not new and it is not unique to any particular country.

Like all powerful countries, the 1% in the U.S. gladly permits an engineer or a skilled medical doctor from any country to work in the U.S. legally and at the same time would allow- to a certain degree- migrant or undocumented workers to work hard in the shadow, for pennies. This creates a work force that has no rights or identity and is forced to endure a harsh working environment for long hours in the industrial or agricultural field. For peace and justice activists this understanding is crucial.

All U.S. Presidents have propagated the campaign against immigrants to a different degree. President Trump and his administration with their “zero tolerance” policy have only exposed the decades of cruelty and inhumane treatment that immigrants have had to endure in the custody of the U.S. government. A fascistic minded President and his shameless racist Attorney General, Mr. Sessions, want to intimidate not only immigrants and asylum seekers’ families but also those conscious people who are outraged and standing up to this barbaric and undemocratic behavior.

Unfortunately, despite mountains of evidence and images of how immigrant children were placed in cages during Mr. Obama presidency, a considerable number of activists are still  unconsciously distracted by the cunning Democratic Party leadership.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are blaming each other for the tragedy of the isolated immigrants. It is repulsive to see that the well known representatives of the Democratic Party after 8 years of Mr. Obama’s anti-immigrant policies now acting like they are surprised of what is going on with ICE or other privately run detention centers. Republicans, in return, have made a mockery of being “compassioned” and toss another bizarre distraction into the mix by sending the First Lady to the South carrying a bold message from the White House that reads: “I REALLY DON’T CARE, DO U?” to visit the detained immigrant “children”!

It is needless to say that this obvious message became a feeding frenzy for the clueless political pundits from all sides on the gossip commercial media. However, a minority of conscious and democratic minded people are organizing demonstrations in different cities and chanting “Set the Children Free” and “We Are Not Giving Up”.

The hysteria over border security and building a wall is just an exaggerated and baseless notion that is propagated by politicians to keep the American population in a constant state of fear and confusion. Despite the 1% unfounded claims that the Immigration issues are very complicated and unsolvable, there are many practical solutions to the immigration question. Mr. Trump says: “The US will not be a migrant camp” meanwhile the U.S. Navy has developed a plan to construct internment camps to hold tens of thousands of immigration detainees on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona. Certainty these camps are also built for dissents who dare to question and expose the authorities. Mr. Sessions is already warning activista and immigrant rights advocates that “Free speech … will be protected, but obstructing law enforcement …will not be tolerated “.  Of course the vague word like “obstruction” is only defined by law enforcement! The Associated Press points out that

“President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited gang activity as justification for his crackdown on illegal immigration.”

The Independent reports that:

“Teenage immigrants detained in a Virginia juvenile detention centre allege that they were beaten and subjected to long periods of confinement, including some instances where teens were left nude in a cold concrete cell.”

Source: Massoud Nayeri

What needs to be done? Is there any solution to the question of Immigration? The answer is YES. But first we have to understand the root causes of the recent migration. Those families who are seeking asylum mainly are from the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras which today are facing unparalleled levels of violent crime. One of the best informative sources is the WOLA a leading research and advocacy organization advancing human rights in the Americas. Maureen Meyer and Elyssa Pachico in their Commentary: “Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration and Central American Asylum Seekers”, layout the root cause of migration in details.

Second we have to act independent of influential politicians and ignore their friendly or provocative distractions. Congress has already shown it is incompetent. What we need is transparency – a task that only independent democratic minded people are able to carry on. In time of emergency, one must act swiftly. An Independent Fact Finding Commission by working people is in order. A People’s Commission that consists of conscious Religious Leaders, Professional Medical Caretakers, Civil Rights Lawyers, Working Mothers and Fathers, Teachers and Progressive Journalists as a group should have access to all detention Centers and immigrants’ official records with full authority to publish their uncensored findings and their recommendations for immediate implementation.

*

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

Humanity’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’: Starving, Enslaving, Torturing and Killing Our Children

By Robert J. Burrowes, June 25, 2018

Every day, according to some estimates, human adults kill 50,000 of our children. The true figure is probably significantly higher. We kill children in wars. See, for example, ‘Scourging Yemen’. We kill them with drones. We kill them in our homes and on the street. We shoot them at school.

The Global Refugee Crisis: Humanity’s Last Call for a Culture of Sharing and Cooperation

By Rajesh Makwana, June 25, 2018

Instead of providing ‘safe and legal routes’ to refugees, a growing number of countries on the migration path from Greece to Western Europe are adopting the Donald Trump solution of building walls, militarising boarders and constructing barbed wire barriers to stop people entering their country. Undocumented refugees (a majority of them women and children) who are trying to pass through Europe’s no-longer borderless Schengen area are at times subjected to humiliation and violence or are detained in rudimentary camps with minimal access to the essentials they need to survive.

How the US, Under Obama, Created Europe’s Refugee Crisis

By Eric Zuesse, June 25, 2018

The US Government itself caused this crisis that Europeans are struggling to deal with. Would the crisis even exist, at all, if the US had not invaded and tried to overthrow (and in some instances actually overthrown) the governments in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere — the places from which these refugees are escaping?

US Court Documents Reveal Immigrant Children Tied Down, Hooded, Beaten, Stripped and Drugged

By Patrick Martin, June 24, 2018

Court documents made public in Virginia and Texas give a glimpse of the systematic brutality being meted out to immigrant children in both public and private jails. Children are strapped down, hooded and beaten, or drugged by force, as part of the everyday procedure in what can only be called the American Gulag.

Refugee Crisis: Manufactured Migrants Are Tools in U.S. Empire’s ‘Grand Chessboard’

By Barrie Zwicker, June 24, 2018

The misery of asylees, Springmann writes, is one of the planned outcomes of horrendous and unlawful military attacks on Syria and other countries. These are carried out in proxy wars by “the West,” including Israel. Springmann writes that Israel “is a terrorist entity” and “an ever helpful architect of chaos.”

War and the Refugee Crisis: The Western Powers Which Bomb Enemy Nations Are Rejecting Their Refugees

By Masud Wadan, June 24, 2018

No external interventionist holds the right to cause the peaceful inhabitants of a jurisdiction to displace, unless it comes forward with legitimate reasons. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq’s Diaspora worldwide are struggling with the skepticism of the migrant host states over whether they “deserve admission into their societies or not”. By comparison, some European countries as well as Canada, which have no direct involvement in these wars, have welcomed by a far great proportion of the refugees than the US, the UK and France.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The “Global War on Terror” Created The “Global Refugee Crisis”

The American Empire Preps for a US Space Force

June 25th, 2018 by Renee Parsons

At a meeting of the newly-revived National Space Council, President Donald Trump announced the  Space Policy Directive:  National Space Traffic Management (STM) Policy and ordered the Department of Defense to establish a Space Force as a sixth branch of the US military – although creating a ‘separate but equal’ Space Corps would need Congressional authorization.   

Under the guise of a ‘space junk directive’ to clean up a “congested and contested” cosmos that promises to keep the MIC fat and happy; at the same time make space safe for the up-and-coming commercial space industry (CSI), the Directive suggests an overly-ambitious mission of broad, wide-ranging goals with no time schedule or funding.

Specifically, the Directive provides a role for the DOD “to protect and defend US space assets and interests’ and I am still trying to wrap my mind around how the Director of National Intelligence will provide a Space Situational Awareness (SSA) of ‘knowledge and characterization of space objects.”  Further expounding on the US role in outer space, Trump added 

“..our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security.  We must have American dominance in space.     

As the US presumes to act on behalf of other countries on the planet and commercial space endeavors which might someday launch a satellite up into the wild, blue yonder, the Directive proposes to establish operational criteria with the assumption that all players will accept the Empire’s dominance and happily follow their every command.  

Opposition within the Trump Administration has not been reticent with Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson suggesting that

The Pentagon is complicated enough.  This will make it more complex, add more boxes to the organization chart, and cost more money.”

In an October, 2017 letter on the NDAA 2018, Defense Secretary James Mattis commented:  

I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”   

And in a later letter to Congress, Mattis reiterated

I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations,”

Despite Pentagon opposition, an administration witness told a recent House Armed Services subcommittee that 

the President has prioritized space. He recognized the threats that have evolved and the pace at which they evolve. 

In March, the president endorsed a Space Force during a White House ceremony with “we’re getting very big in space, both militarily and for other reasons” suggesting that the true purpose of a Space Force may be more than the equivalent of a celestial traffic cop. 

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, there are 1,738 operational satellites with 803 US satellites in orbit (476 commercial, 150 government, 159 military and 18 civil).  Russia has 142 operational satellites and China has 204.   There are also 2,600 non-functional human-made satellites, most of which weigh less than 5 tons and fly in a low orbit specifically programmed to burn out and fall to earth after 25 years. 

It is difficult to conjure up the effects of a ‘growing threat’ from ‘human-made’ orbital clutter and debris floating the infinite vastness of outer space as cosmically significant enough to qualify as a national security risk or that US global dominance is required to sweep the cosmos clean of said debris.  Perhaps, however, the President is referring to something other than debris and clutter. 

While outer space is a wide-open, limitless expanse full of life that remains as clandestine as any black ops project. global citizens no longer members of the Flat Earth Club are familiar with the noteworthy increase of reported extra terrestrial activity across the planet. While UFO’s are part of the lexicon, having evolved from folklore to real time events, government secrecy abounds. 

Especially intriguing are former astronauts who have commented on their experiences as well as members of the US military  who have described sightings that move at very high velocities with no visible signs of propulsion or that hover with no apparent means of lift and can change direction or speed on a dime.  

A black ops until it was revealed in December, 2017, the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which prepared a 500 page document of worldwide UFO sightings, was Congressionally funded by former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), home state of Area 51.   In a CNN interview, retired AATIP director Luis Elizondo who resigned in protest over ‘excessive secrecy’ said

my personal belief is that there is very compelling evidence that we may not be alone. 

Two events that dared challenge the government’s decades of secrecy with open disclosure were two press conferences at the National Press Club featuring retired military personnel providing public comment on their direct experiences with an extra terrestrial world in their official capacity.  The first press conference occurred on September, 10, 2001, one day before the 911 attacks and another on September 27, 2010.    Both press conferences were organized by Dr. Steven Greer of the Disclosure Project who also produced the videos Sirius and Unacknowledged.   

In responding to the Directive, Greer said he has been

talking about this for years and has spoken to multiple witnesses who said that at least since the 1960s the US has had military assets in space. They (Trump administration) are acknowledging something that is already there. However, what is not being talked about, even now, is that those military assets are tracking and targeting ET craft.”

On the edge of human consciousness lies a more subtle, less obvious presence than the usual political adversaries as the US continues to lay specious claim to ownership of Outer Space.   Since the Roswell crash in 1947, the US has maintained a committed disinformation campaign to withhold truth from a disempowered citizenry – a truth that would empower those who have been blind to the government’s deception and a truth that would challenge the carefully crafted, familiar world we call reality. 

*

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31.

Nothing Civil About War in Syria, Says Assad

June 25th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

“We do not have a civil war, since a civil war is based on inter-confessional, ethnic, religious or other conflicts,” Assad explained, adding:

“We do not have this in Syria. You can go anywhere, particularly in government-controlled areas, and can see all the layers of Syrian society living peacefully alongside one another.”

“The war has taught us a very important lesson. Our diverse society has become much more united than it was before the war. We learned this lesson.”

Time and again throughout the war, I explained the same thing. Syria is Obama’s war, now Trump’s – naked aggression launched for regime change, continuing with no prospect in sight for resolution.

Washington wants another imperial trophy, a sovereign independent state replaced by pro-Western puppet rule, an Israeli rival eliminated, Iran isolated ahead of a similar scheme to topple its government.

That’s what imperialism is all about, diabolical viciousness for dominance by brute force, no nation more ruthless about it over a longer duration than America.

“Land of the free and home of the brave,” “America the beautiful,” its self-styled exceptionalism and indispensable state rubbish are cover for permanent wars of aggression, barbarous rampaging, rage for global dominance, indifference to virtually everything just societies hold dear.

America’s self-proclaimed “manifest destiny” was all about settlers from abroad alone enjoying the nation’s “spacious skies…amber waves of grain…and purple mountain majesties…from sea to shining sea.”

Indigenous people had to go, mass slaughter the way, winning the west accomplished by eliminating them.

Hitler modeled his “final solution” on the American holocaust, genocide defined as destroying a nation or ethnic group by “tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc.” – including its culture and heritage.

It’s the American way. Wherever US forces show up, mass slaughter, vast destruction and human misery follow.

NATO was established to serve its interests first and foremost. Today it’s a killing machine, a force for pure evil, not good.

Its existence threatens humanity’s survival, notably because of Washington’s aim to make it global force for colonizing planet earth, an agenda for endless wars and chaos, aiming for ruler-serf societies worldwide, wealth and powerful interests dominating all others.

General Smedley Butler famously explained it, saying

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service, and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers” – a “gangster” for monied interests.

“…I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

His book titled “War is a Racket” is a powerful anti-war classic, far more relevant now than when he wrote it in 1935 during the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal era – polar opposite the scourge of neoliberal harshness, supported by both right wings of US duopoly governance.

In his interview with NTV, Assad covered much more ground, his remarks always candid straightforward, an antidote to duplicitous Western politicians, notably US ones.

He called alleged Syrian use of CWs “fairy tales…(fabricated) stories…used when…terrorists under their control, are defeated in some part of Syria.”

US-supported terrorists are down but not out, he stressed. ISIS, al-Nusra, and likeminded jihadists aren’t going away. Washington, NATO, Israel, and their allies will “use them again and again, but under different names.”

He blasted the West, saying it’s “distant from the concept of integrity. They do not give. They only take.” They rape and destroy for their own self-interest.

Asked if he’ll run for another term in 2021, he said what he explained many times before. He’ll serve if Syrians want him. He’s overwhelmingly popular. Without strong support, he’ll step aside for new leadership.

He stressed the following:

The “problem (with) West is that they do not have statesmen…only fake politicians. Fake politics needs fake news.”

“Tales about chemical weapons are part of this fake. Western politicians, and I’m not talking about the people, only the politicians, there is absolutely no sense of morality or moral principles.”

“When you encounter unprincipled people, they do not touch your heart nor your mind.”

They ravage nations for their own self-interest. They rape and destroy because who’ll stop them.

Their ruthlessness and recklessness to own planet earth may end up destroying it.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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


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

Something Strange About the House of Sergei Skripal

June 25th, 2018 by True Publica

In another twist from one of the most bizarre stories of recent times comes the news that the already beleaguered British taxpayer will now be footing the bill for buying Sergei Skripal’s house.

According to officials cited by The Sunday Times, taxpayers will be footing the bill for Skripal’s home, which is expected to be bought by the UK government for around £350,000. The Sunday Times also reported, that the taxpayer will pay for the home of Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who fell ill after coming into contact with the so-called nerve agent Novichok. That house is expected to cost taxpayers around £430,000. All in all, the purchase of both homes, cars, and other possessions, will amount to a hefty £1 million.

Asked why the state is buying both these properties and belongings, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would be inappropriate to comment on the personal matters of anyone involved in the attack.

“Mr Skripal’s home is still the scene of an ongoing police investigation and has not yet been released for clean-up work,” a spokesman added.

Wiltshire Police told the Sunday Times it was a “personal matter”.

So, it’s all hush-hush then.

Earlier this month it was revealed the force’s overall cost, prior to house buying, will be in the order of £7.5million and the area’s police and crime commissioner Angus Macpherson has asked the Home Office to cover the bill.

In another report by the DailyStar – “A source said Sergei was in an MI5 safehouse and will be “under armed guard 24-hours a day for the foreseeable future”.

And yet The Times reported on April 8th that:

“Sergei and Yulia Skripal will be offered new identities and a new life in America in an attempt to protect them from further murder attempts. Intelligence officials at MI6 have had discussions with their counterparts in the CIA about resettling the victims of the Salisbury poisoning. “They will be offered new identities,” a senior Whitehall figure said.”

One wonders why the state is buying these two properties. One assumes they must be completely cleaned and safe by now even if they had been contaminated. And why not just board them up and leave them? There are plenty of empty homes across the UK. If not, how can the state declare that Salisbury itself is safe and ask members of the Royal family to visit the town if the authorities cannot contain a very confined space such as a house?

Something Strange About The House of Sergei Skripal

Source: TruePublica

There are many confusing aspects to this story that continues to this day and the buying of Skripal’s house with no explanation or valid reason only adds to it.

As OffGuardian put it with regard to the event as it was unravelling back in March:

Even the numbers of casualties still can’t be agreed upon. The claim of “nearly 40” needing treatment that were made by Neil Basu, the national head of counterterrorism, and repeated in the Times and other outlets, were subsequently debunked by a senior physician at Salisbury hospital, who, in a letter to the Times, said unambiguously that only three people (presumably the two Skripals and Bailey) had ever needed treatment. A correction the Times itself published the same day.”

The government totally messed up their story – thanks to the continued ineptitude of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. As John Pilger put it – “this was a carefully constructed drama” – perhaps not as carefully constructed as it could have been though.

By April 20th, senior civil servants were distancing themselves from this story. Craig Murray, with connections in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said:

FCO sources tell me it remains the case that senior civil servants in both the FCO and Home Office remain very sceptical of Russian guilt in the Skripal case.”

Nothing actually really changed from that position even though mainstream media were having a festival of propaganda that was then to be subsequently silenced by the government as the story got more muddled and confusing and suspicions rose.

On April 22nd TruePublica was the only news outlet in Britain to report that a Novichok delivery system had been patented in the USA in April 2013. Why would anyone need to protect a patent design to deliver a deadly nerve agent that was supposedly illegal in the country that patented it – or any other country for that matter?

By April 30th the connection had been made about Pablo Millar. He was a colleague in both MI6 and then Orbis Intelligence with Christopher Steele, author of the fabrications of the Trump/Russia golden shower dossier, paid for by the Democrats in an attempt to tarnish Trump with a revelation that involved the Russians and prostitutes. In this case, British spooks were found to be making it up and the story was debunked within weeks.

As this news was about to become public the government sent out D-Notices banning all media mention of Pablo Miller making it more than probable that the government had something to hide and that the whole incident related to the Trump dossier puts Skripal in the frame for working on it.

By May 10th TruePublica reported that

a D-notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) used by the British state to censor the publication of potentially damaging news stories had been formally issued to the mainstream media to withhold publication of the British ex-spy deeply involved in the Skripal/Novichok affair.”

TruePublica then published the D-Notice.

The involvement of Skripal, a double agent himself, with MI5 and MI6 officers, who had in fact, been suspected more recently of being a triple-agent, with the connection of major political parties in the USA along with the hundreds of Russian agents exposed (many of whom were reported as being captured and murdered) by Skripal’s disclosures to foreign government’s for cash – made him a target of many actors. Skripal could well have a been a victim of an assassination attempt by an aggrieved Russian family but the story of the Russian state itself being involved simply does not stack up. This is especially so given that if the Russian state was involved – it would have succeeded in its mission and not bungled it quite so badly as it turned out.

We will probably never learn of the truth in this case. Skripal has gone. No-one can speak to him, his daughter or their families.

The entire affair is an embarrassing mess for the government, which stinks of collusion and cover-up, most of the damage being done by Boris Johnson’s ridiculous lies.

The New Yorker staff writer Adam Entous revealed on June 18 that four sitting U.S. presidents beginning with Bill Clinton signed secret letters agreeing never to publicly discuss Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. According to Entous, President Trump’s aides felt “blindsided” by Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer’s urgent demand to sign a fourth letter. Only a small number of “senior American officials” in the previous three administrations even knew about the existence of such letters. Though said not to specifically mention Israel’s arsenal, Israeli leaders interpret the letters as binding American pledges not to publicly mention Israel’s nuclear weapons or press Israel to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The letters add to growing evidence of a longstanding multifaceted executive and federal agency conspiracy to violate the US Arms Export Control Act on Israel’s behalf.

US Foreign Assistance to Israel Since the Clinton Administration (US Billion)

Source: 2018 GAO report “US Foreign Aid to Israel,” MOU commitments, inflation-adjusted, excludes black budgets.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuwho has FBI-documented personal connections to Israel’s nuclear weapons program smuggling operations – was particularly concerned about newly-elected president Barack Obama. On February 9, 2009, veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked if Obama knew “of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons.” Obama dodged answering the question before finally replying that he didn’t “want to speculate.” Speaking in Prague in April, 2009 Obama called for strengthening the NPT. However, by May 2009, Obama yielded to Israeli pressure and signed an updated version of the secret Israeli gag letter, according to Entous. On September 6, 2012 Obama’s Department of Energy, in consultation with the Department of State, issued a secret directive called “Guidance on Release of Information Relating to the Potential for an Israeli Nuclear Capability,” or WNP-136 making it a crime for any US government employee or contractor to publicly communicate any information – even from the public domain – about Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

The Israelis, empowered by their $6.3 billion per year US affinity network, are ever eager to curtail informed public discussion and policymaking about Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Entous notes that Israel already had three nuclear devices by 1967 but does not examine how a country with no infrastructure to produce highly-enriched uranium managed to assemble such weapons. According to CIA and FBI files, Israel colluded with Pennsylvania nuclear processing plant administrators, two connected to Israeli intelligence and three with strong connections to the Zionist Organization of America, to divert enough US government-owned highly-enriched uranium to build several devices in the 1960s. The pillage of NUMEC, a privately-held thinly capitalized Atomic Energy Agency contractor, left behind a toxic mess and hundreds of poisoned, uncompensated victims.

More important than avoiding public knowledge about how Israel built its nuclear program, Israel and its lobby wish to preempt overdue enforcement of the 1976 Symington and Glenn Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act now embedded in the US Arms Export Control Act. US presidents, upon learning that a non-NPT member is trafficking in nuclear weapons technology and testing nuclear weapons, are supposed to publicly notify Congress and cut off US foreign aid to said country. Israel has not signed the NPT and also continually smuggles nuclear weapons-making technology from the US. The President can comply with the AECA by publicly justifying to Congress why continuing foreign aid to non-NPT signatory proliferators serves the US national interest, as was done in the case of waivers for Pakistan. No president has ever complied with any of provisions of the AECA regarding Israel, including waivers. (PDF)

In May of 2018, the US District Court of Appeals of DC upheld a lower court’s ruling that US citizens have no standing to sue the president and executive agencies complicit in failing to enforce the AECA over the many administrations inflict by improperly withholding information sought through the Freedom of Information Act about Israel’s nuclear weapons program and US policy. In a brief, the US Department of Justice argued that the President has sole authority whether or not to recognize Israel’s nuclear weapons program as fact, stating “The legislative history of the [AECA] statute, moreover, makes clear that Congress intended that ‘the determinations under this section. . . be made by the President…the president’s decision whether or not to make a determination…is the epitome of a discretionary judgment…’” (PDF, page 5 and 6).

Most Americans believe Israel has nuclear weapons and that Congress should factor Israel’s nuclear arsenal into congressional discussions about US foreign aid given to Israel to allegedly maintain its “qualitative military edge.” In polls, Americans consistently say the US gives too much aid to Israel.

Excluding clandestine US aid funneled through black budgets, US presidents and Congress have given an inflation-adjusted sum of $222.8 billion to Israel since the Symington & Glenn Amendments became law in 1976. Since Bill Clinton became the first known US president to sign a secret letter to Israel, inflation-adjusted aid to Israel has grown to $99.9 billion.

*

Grant F. Smith is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington and the author of the 2016 book, Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby moves America now available as an audiobook.

Noted consumer advocate and author Ralph Nader on Friday offered a sharp retort to Laura Bush and Michelle Obama in response to the former first ladies levied criticism at the Trump administration’s cruel immigration policy that separated immigrant children from their families.

“Would be nice if Laura Bush and Michelle Obama had expressed similar heartfelt concern for the tens of thousands of children killed or seriously maimed by the wars of their husbands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere,” he tweeted.

As it’s signed “-R,” it was written by Nader himself, rather than his staff who often tweet on his behalf.

The tweet follows an op-ed published Sunday at the Washington Post in which Bush took aim at Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy, writing that she “was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents.”

“I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” she wrote, tweeting out the same section of text.

Michelle Obama retweeted that, adding,

“Sometimes truth transcends party.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it should also be noted, was created under the George w. Bush administration and the Obama administration also came under fire for his deportation policy, treatment of child migrants, and the detention of immigrant families.

The other living first ladies have also weighed in on the Trump administration’s widely condemned policy of ripping families apart at the Southern border, with all expressing at least some measure of criticism.

The current First Lady’s reaction to the separations and detention of chidlren was quite mild, with a spokesperson for Melania Trump saying she “hates to see children separated from their families.” It also rang particularly hollow, as, on her way to visit a detention center at the border, she wore a jacket emblazoned with the words “I really don’t care, do U?”

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Featured image is from AlterNet.

Israel’s War on Photographers and Their Images

June 25th, 2018 by Hossam Shaker

Amid the ongoing killing of defenceless Palestinian demonstrators, the Israeli leadership is engaged in a fierce and multifaceted war on photographers, either by shooting at them or criminalising them. Israel’s occupation authorities fear that photographs and video images will expose their brutality on the ground, which may lead to the provision of evidence to help prosecute officers and soldiers in accordance with international criminal justice procedures.

In the past, professional journalists rarely managed to reach the sites and locations where Israel was committing its crimes and human rights violations in time to record them for posterity, because the army would declare the sites to be closed military zones. Images weren’t as much of a concern for the Israelis as they are today. Most of the killings, assaults and abuse that Israeli soldiers and settlers committed in the past took place away from the scrutiny of the lens; only a few incidents were documented on camera, and they usually caused an uproar by moving the world’s conscience.

This happened during the First Intifada that broke out in late 1987 and lasted for several years. A photographer captured shocking images of soldiers breaking the bones of young Palestinians. Soldiers were shown surrounding groups of handcuffed and blindfolded men before hitting them with stones repeatedly until their arms were broken.

There were also images of Palestinian children being used as human shields; Israeli soldiers tied them to the bumpers of their vehicles to protect themselves against stone-throwers. At the end of September 2000, Mohammad Al-Durra’s name was known around the world after he was shot and killed in his father’s arms, despite his father repeatedly calling on the soldiers to stop firing. The scene ended with Abu Mohammad collapsing over his son’s body.

In 2003, photographers documented the crushing to death of human rights activist Rachel Corrie by an Israeli bulldozer. The US citizen was protesting against the razing of Palestinian homes to the ground in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip. In 2006, media lenses also captured the shock on the face of young Huda Ghalia on the beach in Gaza after an Israeli gunboat killed most of her family members in one murderous fusillade.

These events and others preceded the Palestinians’ use of smart phones linked to social media sites. This is the technological development that has raised concerns amongst the Israelis. While the soldiers are armed with their deadly weapons, the Palestinians and activists supporting them are armed with their smartphones, which can expose the actions of the soldiers in real time and may be enough to convict them in international courts one day.

Palestinian victims of Israeli brutality were once merely statistics reported in news reports, but the new generation of citizen journalists takes their lives and their deaths into the public domain around the world within seconds. Anyone can thus get close to them, get to know them, feel their pain and anguish, and sympathise in their tragedy. Modern high-resolution photography is being used to document Israeli war crimes, which Israel fears due to the potential consequences. This has been expressed officially by warnings about “harming the morale of the soldiers.”

The mass killings committed by Israeli snipers on the fringe of the Gaza Strip a few short weeks ago marked a turning point in this issue. The massacre of peaceful protesters and the extensive injuries they sustained provoked global outrage, so much so that even the pro-Israel lobby has been unable to justify Israel’s actions in the US and European media.

The so-called Israel Defence Forces fears that damning video footage documenting soldiers’ crimes will be used to prosecute them. Footage has emerged of soldiers standing on one of the hills near the border Gaza, shooting Palestinian protestors and then cheering at the injuries they inflicted. Such footage is rare, even though Israeli soldiers have regularly behaved in such a manner as they shoot at Palestinians and their homes.

This is why the government has introduced a bill in parliament — the Knesset — which would make it illegal to photograph soldiers in the act of carrying out their duties, no matter that such duties often contravene international law. The initial reading of the bill was passed on 20 June.

This is how the Israeli government is declaring war on photographers and their images. Israel and its army have things they want to hide from the world which they understand that most people will find repulsive.

Rushdi Sarraj [r], co-founder of Ain Media and Yaser Murtaja who was killed by an Israeli sniper in April (Source: MEMO)

It was also noticeable during the Great March of Return protests in Gaza that the Israeli snipers were targeting professional journalists wearing very clear “PRESS” insignia on their vests. Those carrying cameras were particular targets. The killing of photojournalist Yasser Murtaja has become a symbol of the sacrifices made by journalists while doing their job in the besieged territory.

If images from the front line are no longer available from independent eyewitnesses to Israel’s crimes, we can be certain that the government’s propaganda machine will swing into action to “prove” that the soldiers acted in “self-defence”. The Israelis will do anything to cover up their war crimes, hide their rights violations and continue to try to justify what most reasonable people believe is unjustifiable. Photographers and journalists must be allowed to go about their work free from violence and threats to their lives.

If there was a pill which could boost your health, increase testosterone, sharpen your mind and supercharge your athletic abilities … you’d take it, right?

Especially if there were no negative side effects … and the pill was cheap?

Well, there is something like that.

But instead of a pill you pop in your mouth, it’s a special type of light. Scientists call treatment with this special type of light “photobiomodulation” (or “PBM”), and they used to call it “low level light therapy” (or “LLLT”). Or some people simply call it “red light therapy”.

If this sounds crazy, remember that our bodies evolved to make Vitamin D from a specific type of light (specifically, the ultraviolet light coming from the sun). And scientists say that the blue light from your devices can damage your eyes and may cause severe health problems. So it is clear that light has an effect on us.

Thousands of Scientific Studies from All Over the World Demonstrate the Power of This Approach

Let’s jump right into the scientific proof that this approach is incredibly powerful for a vast range of conditions. We will link to the scientific studies, and note the academic institutions with which the researchers are affiliated.

Improves Athletic and Sports Performance

Top U.S. Olympic athletes state that PBM helps their performance. See this video, and then watch this one.
Many studies show that PBM can assist in athletic performance:

  • Provides an advantage in sports performance (Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Universidade do Sagrado Coração)
  • Promotes mucle regeneration (Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Federal University of São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo)

Good for the Brain

  • Researchers at the Department of Psychology and Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin found:

“LLLT improves prefrontal cortex-related cognitive functions, such as sustained attention, extinction memory, working memory, and affective state. Transcranial infrared stimulation may be used efficaciously to support neuronal mitochondrial respiration as a new non-invasive, cognition-improving intervention in animals and humans. This fascinating new approach should also be able to influence other brain functions …”

They note:

“LLLT supplies the brain with metabolic energy in a way analogous to the conversion of nutrients into metabolic energy, but with light instead of nutrients providing the source for ATP-based metabolic energy.”

  • Helps with dementia (Harvard Medical School, Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital)
  • Helps with Parkinson’s (Lausanne University Hospital, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, with funding from Swiss National Science Foundation)

Increases Testosterone

Studies from North Carolina State UniversityU.S. National Cancer Institute, College of Medical Sciences in Nepal, NRS Medical College and Dankook University, and the Wallace Memorial Baptist Hospital show that PBM may significantly increase testosterone levels in males.

Helps Prevent Macular Degeneration

Good for the Skin

  • It’s good for the skin (Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Sciences, India, Aripam Medical Center, Israel):

“In dermatology, LLLT has beneficial effects on wrinkles, acne scars, hypertrophic scars, and healing of burns. LLLT can reduce UV damage both as a treatment and as a prophylaxis. In pigmentary disorders such as vitiligo, LLLT can increase pigmentation by stimulating melanocyte proliferation and reduce depigmentation by inhibiting autoimmunity. Inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis and acne can also benefit.”

  • Reduces wrinkles (Medical Light Consulting, Heidelberg, Germany, International GmbH, Windhagen, Germany)

Mood and Depression

Protects the Heart

  • Helps protect the heart after a heart attack (Sydney University, Australian Catholic University, University of New South Wales, Macquarie University, Maitland Hospital, Blacktown Hospital)

Reduces Pain

Helps Teeth and Gums

  • Helps heal bone defects after grafts (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul)
  • Reduces pain in mouth (Urmia University of Medical Sciences)

Assists with Weight Loss

Thyroid

  • The University of Sao Paulo Medical School has shown that PBM can help with thyroid conditions.

Joint Pain and Arthritis

Nerve Damage

Other Healing Effects

Studies have shown many other beneficial effects from PBM, including:

  • Reduces tinnitus (University of Manchester, Weill Cornell Medical College, Rumaillah Hospital and Hamad General Hospital)
  • Reduces baldness in men and women (various)

Indeed, an FDA scientists said at a recent conference that PBM showed positive effects on virtually every health condition studied so far.

(And the articles listed above are just a sample … I have collected hundreds of other links to scientific articles on the health benefits of PBM. But spamming you with links would be boring. And scientists such as Hamblin have written definitive summaries of the topic.)

How Was This Discovered?

The discovery of PBM – like many great scientific discoveries – was largely an accident …

Emeritus Professor, Radiation Oncology (Radiation Biology) Stanford University School of Medicine, Kendric C. Smith, notes:

“The father of phototherapy is Niels Ryberg Finsen, who first used sunlight, and then red light, to treat patients with smallpox in the 1800’s. He received a Nobel Prize in 1903.”

In 1967, professor of surgery at Pazmany Peter University in Budapest named Endre Mester experimented on rats and mice to try to induce cancer with lasers. He shaved the mice, and then shot a red laser at them. To his surprise, the red laser didn’t induce cancer … instead hair grew back faster on the animals.

In the 1990’s, NASA ran experiments to see if LED lights could help plants grow onboard the space shuttle. But the astronauts soon noticed that the lights helped their wounds heal more quickly.

NASA notes:

“Tiny light-emitting diode (LED) chips used to grow plants in space are lighting the way for cancer treatment, wound healing, and chronic pain alleviation on Earth.”

Evolutionary Basis for the Health Benefits of Red Light

What possible mechanism could explain the incredibly diverse positive effects from PBM? What possible evolutionary explanation is there for this treatment?

Our bodies evolved to consume certain materials to stay healthy. For example, we evolved to eat protein and drink water … so we need both to maintain health. Scientists have recently learned that our bodies also evolved to consume omega 3 fatty acids, and as mentioned above, to make Vitamin D from UV light.

The sunlight shining on our ancestors’ and our bodies is comprised mainly of red and near infrared light between around and nanometers:

Source: Nick84, CC BY-SA 3.0

As NASA discovered with its red light experiments, red light helps plants to grow. And a new study from researchers from the U.S. and Finland show that virtually all life-forms respond favorably to light. They note:

“Veterinarians routinely use PBM to treat non-mammalian patients. The conclusion is that red or NIR light does indeed have significant biological effects conserved over many different kingdoms, and perhaps it is true that “all life-forms respond to light”.

Our ancestors were outside a lot. Many of them woke up shortly before dawn, and went to sleep shortly after dusk. So they got exposed to a lot of natural light … not only bright overhead white sunlight, but also the red wavelengths in the sunrise and sunset.

So maybe we evolved to get a lot of exposure to red light. The fact that plants and other organisms seem to be positively effected by red light would support that argument.

But that still doesn’t explain why red light applied to the inside of the body has beneficial effects. Specifically, red light shined inside the nose or – according to Chinese and Russian tests – directly into the bloodstream, have positive effects.

How could this be?

Scientists have proven that red light boosts the production of ATP by mitochondria, which are the powerhouses in our cells. Every cell in our body (other than red blood cells) contain mitochondria.

Now here’s my personal theory …

Mitochondria may originally have been photosynthetic bacteria. For example, a top evolutionary biologist – Oxford professor of evolutionary biology Thomas Cavalier-Smith – argues:

[T]he first enslavement step [of the bacteria which would become mitochondria by larger organisms which would eventually evolve into humans] was uptake of a host carrier protein through the outer membrane (OM) and its insertion into the inner, cytoplasmic membrane (IM) of a photosynthetic purple bacterium that escaped into the host cell’s cytoplasm from the food vacuole into which it was initially phagocytosed.

Studies show that photosynthetic purple bacteria utilize similar wavelengths to those used in PBM.

So while I obviously don’t know why PBM does so many helpful things, my hypothesis is that PBM taps into latent abilities of our mitochondria … that may have lain untapped for millions of years.

While this may sound whacky, the Harvard Medical School professor who wrote the book (actually severalof them) on PBM, Dr. Michael Hamblin, told me “I think there is something in your theory”.

Postscript: In a separate article, I will discuss various ways to use PBM and get exposure to red light therapy.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Future of Medicine: Boost Your Health, Mental Abilities and Athletic Ability with Light. “Photobiomodulation”

Dublin mayor calls for Irish boycott of 2019 Eurovision in Israel

14 May 2018

Dublin’s mayor on Monday called for Ireland to boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest, which is to be held in Israel, in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Micheal Mac Donncha told Dublin Live news site that he would support a boycott of the Israeli-hosted event.

“I would support that, I don’t think we should send a representative,” he said.

Read more at www.timesofisrael.com

French director Jean-Luc Godard among dozens of film professionals to boycott Israel cinema event

The French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard joined dozens of other film-industry professionals from France who vowed to boycott an event celebrating Israeli cinema.

Godard, a pioneer of the 1960s New Wave cinema and an avowed Marxist who has fought accusations of anti-Semitism, added his name to a May 4 petition calling for a boycott of the France-Israel Season event by the Institut Francais. The state-run organization for furthering French culture abroad scheduled next month’s event in cooperation with Israeli government officials.

Read more at www.jta.org

Head of Portugal’s national theatre endorses BDS, cancels Israel cultural event

May 21, 2018

A Portuguese director and playwright who was scheduled to take part in next month’s Israel Festival, has announced that he is officially joining the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement (BDS).

According to the Israeli Haaretz, Tiago Rodrigues was supposed to perform in Israel twice in the beginning of June but decided to reverse his decision after learning that the festival was part of Israel’s 70th Independence Day celebrations.

Read more at www.middleeastmonitor.com

BDS Victory: Friendly Match Between Argentina, Israel Cancelled

5 June 2018

The Palestinian ambassador to Argentina said to play in Jerusalem would be to disregard the plight of their Palestinian communities.

After an intense campaign by the pro-Palestinian activists and groups calling for a peaceful boycott against Israel, Argentine Football Association (AFA) have canceled their friendly match with Israel, AFA official Hugo Moyano confirmed Tuesday.

Read more at www.telesurtv.net

Shakira abandons plan to play in Tel Aviv

29 May 2018

Palestinians are welcoming the news that Shakira won’t be playing in Tel Aviv this summer.

PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, said that Shakira’s decision dashes Israel’s hopes “to use her name to art-wash its latest massacre in Gaza.”

Read more at electronicintifada.net

Gilberto Gil cancels Tel Aviv gig

22 May 2018

Palestinians are hailing the decision by Brazilian music legend Gilberto Gil to pull the plug on a performance in Israel this summer.

Meanwhile, dozens of artists are declaring their support for the cultural boycott of Israel following the latest Israeli mass killings of civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip.

Read more at electronicintifada.net

U.S. and U.K. bands boycott Berlin event due to Israeli embassy donation

June 11, 2018

US singer John Maus announced his withdrawal from the Berlin Pop-Kultur music festival due to pressure from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.

He is the fourth musical act to boycott the event because the Israeli Embassy is a small sponsor of the August international festival.

Read more at www.jpost.com

After Monday’s Massacre, Boycotting Israel is the Best Way the World Can Fight Back

15 May 2018

May 15, 2018 marks the convergence of three events in Palestine, each with the potential of sparking unrest and violence. The combination of the three portended grave consequences and what happened on Monday with 55 Palestinian civilians gunned down by Israeli soldiers at the Gaza border is confirmation of how dire the situation is. Here, we examine each of these events in their present and historic contexts.

Read more at thewire.in

Pressure grows to cancel “France-Israel Season”

23 May 2018

Demands are growing to cancel the Saison France-Israël 2018 – or France-Israel Season – a series of hundreds of “cultural” events backed by both governments that is set to start next month.

In the first major sign that the pressure is being felt, the French government announced on Wednesday that Prime Minister Édouard Philippe was canceling a trip to open the France-Israel Season.

Already, more than 10,000 people have signed a petition launched this week urging President Emmanuel Macron to cancel the France-Israel Season altogether.

Read more at electronicintifada.net

Palestinian artists and broadcast journalists: Boycott Eurovision 2019!

June 12, 2018

We, the undersigned Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate and network of Palestinian cultural organizations, call on members of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), participating states, contestants and the wider public to boycott the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest to be hosted by Israel. Would the Eurovision have held the contest in apartheid South Africa?

Israel’s regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid is shamelessly using Eurovision as part of its official Brand Israel strategy, which tries to show “Israel’s prettier face” to whitewash and distract attention from its war crimes against Palestinians.

Read more at bdsmovement.net

Norway declares boycott against Israel is legal

05.13.18

Norway’s Foreign Affairs Ministry says boycotting goods coming from Israeli settlement is legal; Norway’s foreign minister sign document saying boycotting Israel is inappropriate; Several local authorities, municipalities make boycott initiatives; Norway’s high education establishment cast academic boycott on Israel.

Read more at www.ynetnews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Avalanche: Artists, Athletes, Personalities from All Over the World Are Boycotting Israel!
  • Tags: , ,

Ontario Looks Right

June 25th, 2018 by Herman Rosenfeld

Featured image: Doug Ford with a female supporter, May 4, 2018. (Source: Doug Ford / Wikimedia)

While U.S. socialists have always challenged the myth of American exceptionalism – that the U.S. is immune to class struggle and a politics linked to it – they tend to have the opposite view of Canadian politics: that the latter is somehow exceptional, rooted in a classic social-democratic and even socialist political culture that makes it immune to reactionary trends like Trumpism and the right-wing populist wave around the world.

But Canada, and its industrial heartland and largest province of Ontario, is far from immune from these forces. Case in point: the June 7 election of a right-wing populist government of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario (PC), led by politician and businessman Doug Ford.

Canada has gone through a number of less reactionary but austerity-driven Conservative governments, most recently that of Stephen Harper from 2006–2015, and Ontario was ruled by a more moderate PC for forty years before hard-line, Thatcher-like neoliberal PC governments ruled from 1995–2003. That draconian regime drove the Ontario economy into the low-wage, low-tax, “anything-goes” development model that dominates today. The Liberal government that succeeded it over the past fifteen years did little to challenge that model.

The election of the PCs in Ontario should have been expected. The PCs were far out in front in the opinion polls for over a year. The party suffered from internecine leadership struggles in the past few months but still maintained a huge lead until the last part of the election campaign. The PC’s popularity was based especially on the anger of people across the province with the long-standing incumbent governing Liberals.

Exhaustion With the Liberals

Ontario Liberals fancy themselves as a “centrist,” business-friendly party that seeks to integrate the needs of capital with workers, combining competitiveness-oriented policies with forms of positive social reforms, vacillating over time between the two policy poles. In reality, it has continued the low-wage economic model it inherited from the previous PC government, driving down spending on social programs slowly – ultimately leaving Ontario with the lowest program spending per capita in the country.

Over its mandate, the Liberals accumulated several scandals and policy boondoggles, along with some moderate reforms. By the time this election was called, there was a general weariness and disgust with them that was captured by Ford and his party.

Some of that weariness came from a more traditional conservative aversion to government spending and taxation and being insufficiently business-friendly. Some reflected opposition or uneasiness with the progressive changes to the labour code made by the Liberals in their final months, in response to mass pressure and protests and an eye for capturing progressive voters, including increasing the minimum wage to $14 with plans to move to $15 per hour.

Kathleen Wynne’s government kept a lid on social-service spending, squeezing education and in particular healthcare, then partially reversing itself in the buildup to the election to take votes from the NDP. People objected to the scandals, the selling off of 53 per cent of the Hydro One electrical utility, and the swift move of the latter to pay its now-private executives shockingly high salaries. Those on both the Right and Left opposed the government for different reasons, while drawing opposite conclusions of what to replace it with.

As in all the right-wing populist movements in the Global North, issues such as job insecurity, workplace closures, relatively high personal tax levels (in a province where government spending per capita remains abysmally low), fed fear and anger amongst key sections of the electorate, and the working class in particular. According to figures cited by Peter Graefe of McMaster University, even with relatively low general unemployment levels (5.5 per cent), the lowest in fifteen years, there remains an exceptionally low labour participation rate, as the percentage of Ontarians aged 15–64 participating in the labour market declined from 79 per cent in 2003 to 72.3 per cent in 2017.

A Social-Democratic Opening

Frustration with the government and opposition to the possibility of a right-wing populist PC victory fueled a response on the Left, as well. While the PCs initially led in the opinion polls, their lead was steadily eroded by the social-democratic Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP). The predicted popular vote for the NDP and PC were virtually tied by the week before the election. But the first-past-the-post electoral system favored the PC, and the popular vote was skewed in a way that gave them enough seats to form a comfortable majority.

June 16, Toronto: Rally for Decent Work. More pics at flickr.com.

As such, much of the frustration with the Liberal government was divided between the PCs, who ended up with 40 per cent of the popular vote, translating into seventy-six parliamentary seats and a clear majority (sixty-three needed), and the social-democratic New Democratic Party (NDP), who took 34 per cent of the vote, translating into forty seats. The governing Liberals took 19 per cent of the popular vote, translating into seven seats. (The Greens won one seat with 4.6 per cent of the vote.)

The NDP is a party of moderate social reform, the successor to the more radical Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), which was founded during the Great Depression and transformed after the 1930s into a moderate Keynesian party. In 1961, a further effort to become more “mainstream,” working with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), led to the creation of the NDP.

In its earlier days, the NDP championed some of Canada’s key social-welfare reforms. In the neoliberal period, the party reflected the Third Way orientation of sister parties in the Global North. Its one time in power in Ontario was in 1990–1995. The party’s current leader, Andrea Horwath, ran two previous middle-of-the-road electoral campaigns that proposed very limited reforms, couched in a discourse of financial orthodoxy. They were outflanked on the left by the Liberals in the 2014 election. This time, they had a more ambitious set of moderate social-democratic proposals, including a form of dental care, day care, Pharmacare, transit, measures to facilitate unionization, and a commitment to fighting privatization.

The NDP also fielded several activist- and left-oriented candidates in some ridings. As the campaign progressed and the precipitous drop in Liberal support became apparent, the NDP became the only electoral challenge to the prospects of a Ford victory. Because of this, much of the Left (and Liberals) rallied behind them.

In purely electoral terms, more voters chose moderate or progressive options than those who chose the PCs. The Liberals couched themselves as “responsible” social reformers, opposing both the draconian right-wing platform of the PCs and attacking the NDP for somehow being too negative toward the private sector or even “socialist.” Yet, the Liberal defense of the flurry of reforms they introduced in the waning months of their mandate made them appear to be progressive in some ways.

Looked at this way, the majority of voters actually voted for more progressive policies than Ford’s PCs. It’s hard to portray the electoral outcome as a wholesale endorsement of right-wing populism. Yet Ford has a majority government at his command.

Clearly, the Ontario electorate is divided in this province. Ford got most of his seats from the rural, exurban, and suburban areas, and traditionally conservative spaces. The NDP elected people in larger urban centers and places where organized labour remains strong or has an historical resonance. But even there, the story isn’t that simple; class, demographic, and ideological differences and contradictions helped shape the outcome.

Doug Ford, the PCs, and Right-Wing Populism à la Ontario

Doug Ford is a multimillionaire co-owner of Deco Labels, a labeling and packaging business based in Chicago and Toronto. He and his brothers inherited it from their father, who was a member of the hard-line, neoliberal PC government of Mike Harris. Doug was a city councillor in Toronto, while his infamous brother, the late Rob Ford, was the mayor who was seen on video smoking crack not long before he died in 2016.

Both Ford brothers wore the mantle of “standing up for the little guy,” using the standard right-wing populist arsenal of opposition to taxes and government spending (referring to the “gravy train” of government waste and “privilege”), public housing, and services; opposing above-ground public transit, defending car dominance of the roads and championing privatization.

But populism of the Right has different inflections in different places. Ford is not openly racist, as is President Donald Trump. Ford courted fiscal and social conservatives within different immigrant communities and communities of color and carefully balanced not-so-concealed appeals to racism and xenophobia with base-building across ethnic and other social divides.

In running for the leadership of the PC party – just a few months before the election – Ford brought his persona and politics with him, much of it as simplistic and obnoxious as Trump. He spoke about “The People,” about bringing “relief” to the “hard-pressed” taxpayers of Ontario, “putting more money in your pocket and letting YOU decide how to spend your hard-earned money,” about cutting taxes and making the province open for business investment in order to create jobs.

While the party gave no costed platform, explaining what exactly the party’s policy intentions were and how they were going to pay for them (and Ford made sure of keeping the media at arms length throughout the entire campaign), their promises were a mix between usual right-wing populist issues and promises peculiar to the Ontario context: cutting the already low corporate tax rate; scrapping the cap-and-trade agreement with California and New York and opposing any carbon tax; reducing gas taxes by 10 cents per liter (the source of much public-transit funding); cutting income tax by 20 per cent for “middle” and upper level earners; freezing the minimum wage and introducing a low-wage tax credit; introducing a meager increase in healthcare spending for long-term care; scrapping a revised (and socially progressive) sex-education curriculum; bringing in provincial ownership of subways and increasing spending on subways (to the detriment of other forms of mass transit), and promising “a buck a beer.”

Instead of renationalizing Hydro One, they promised to fire the company’s high-earning officers and to lower electricity bills. (Previous PC governments began the process of privatizing electricity markets.) And, Ford, unlike his luckless PC predecessor in the 2014 election who boasted of 100,000 public sector layoffs, guaranteed that there would be no job losses as a result of “efficiencies.”

The rough edges of this are clear: severe cuts to state revenues, subsidies for the wealthy, spending promises that can’t be fulfilled without radical cuts to services, an end to environmental initiatives with renewable energy, downward pressure on public sector and other workers’ wages and benefits, and an appeal to social-conservative opposition to updated and progressive sex education in schools. He also opposes safe injection sites for drug users and maintains a “law and order” stance in favor of unfettered police powers.

So, who does he appeal to? Aside from more conservative workers, the wealthier voters favor Ford’s promotion of their interests. Entrepreneurial types who look to replace public-service delivery with low-wage private services see openings.

The business community has supported Ford wholeheartedly. He is committed to further deepening the low-wage model and undoing even moderate reforms introduced by the Liberals. Key members of the business class have grumbled about Canada’s failure to match the Trump tax cuts. Ford offers an unmistakable move in this direction.

On the other hand, key sections of the capitalist class also look to increased investment in infrastructure, transit, and education. It’s unclear how Ford’s promises to dramatically cut revenues would allow the expenditures necessary to make that happen.

The Making of a Right-Wing, Working-Class Voter

There were many working-class Ford supporters, and their support reflects several of the contradictions in working-class life in neoliberal capitalism. In the face of ongoing concerns about job insecurity, stagnant incomes, and deindustrialization, especially in smaller communities, workers are conflicted about how to respond. Unions are limited and weak. Few workers have experience with collective resistance or demanding government limitations on the power of capital.

On the contrary, many blame governments for high taxes and too much “regulation,” for the most part believing that only the private sector can provide “real” jobs and see regulation as an impediment to job creation. Many are so frustrated that they are open to racist, xenophobic, and sexist appeals by the Right. There are no mass political movements or organizations that challenge those beliefs, and right-wing populists like Ford have ready-made – if bogus – responses.

Many workers have difficulties paying their bills and identify taxes as a leading cause of their problems rather than stagnant wages and low-wage jobs. There are also huge imbalances between rural and urban life which shape the way workers in the latter look at the world. Even as the effects of climate change become clearer, reliance on cars in suburban areas increases, keeping many workers sensitive to the cost of gasoline. Carbon taxes and the like are seen as a burden, rather than part of a solution to environmental degradation.

In response to the many challenges of working-class life, people are encouraged to move up the ladder of class and income, seeing successful capitalists as role models to emulate rather than a class which runs and benefits from exploiting them. People living in cities, on the other hand, are portrayed as somehow being part of a despised “elite,” benefiting from new private business and service investments, and somehow enjoying lifestyles denied to people in smaller, rural areas.

Collective resistance and class solidarity don’t automatically occur: they need to be built. In their absence, people are open to the solutions posed by Ford and his allies. But, even with these appeals, half of the electorate responded negatively to Ford’s message.

Still, noticeably weak in the campaign was the labour movement. Three different unions waged competing anti-privatization campaigns in the year leading up to the election and were in no position to wage a sustained anti-Ford campaign with its own agenda. They did little or no education in most unions with their members, let alone in their communities, about the underlying issues, other than official appeals to vote for the NDP. Without any socialist political party or movement with roots in working-class communities or institutions, this is not surprising.

During the final weeks of the campaign, the PCs aired an effective series of ads which targeted the NDP. Attacks on NDP candidates aimed at “radical activists” and “lawbreakers” (who were indeed the more progressive and activist people in the party), went relatively unanswered, as did ads saying that the NDP would chase business out of the province. The NDP had few answers for the latter attacks.

Ford’s brand of right-wing populism fits into the context of Canadian and Ontario political culture, much as Trump has his roots in the peculiarities of U.S. populism. Both are odious. The PCs don’t openly call for privatizing Medicare or education, or even public transit. Public and working-class support for these services play a greater role in the political culture of Ontarians than Americans. But that doesn’t mean that the new government won’t build on people’s frustrations with these public goods and look to undermine their non-commodified elements or undermine public ownership and control over time.

The same is partially true for avoiding the open embrace of nativist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, and homophobic elements of U.S. right-wing populist culture. They are present in the PC caucus, party, and in Ford’s politics. Social-conservative elements within different Canadian demographic segments including immigrants and native-born whites were clearly courted by Ford, and his bloc of supporters includes large numbers of people with economically and socially conservative ideas from different communities (some of whom are elected MPPs).

Ford mobilized voters over the sex-education issue both outside and within some immigrant communities, but also the planned legalization of marijuana by the Federal Liberal government. The PC’s tapping of social-conservative views within certain communities, in the context of Canada’s multicultural ethos, has the potential to create an identitarian mobilization on the Right, even as it opens space for white supremacist groups.

Along with this were dog-whistle appeals to those open to the worst of these positions, such as when he said that Northern Ontario should provide jobs to all the jobless in the province before inviting immigrant workers to fill openings in these communities. He also reinforced homophobic and misogynistic attitudes toward the current premier, Kathleen Wynne, who is a lesbian (particularly in his opposition to the updated sex-education curriculum which includes thoughtful introductions to LGBTQ issues). His campaign showed a disdain for “political correctness” similar to Trump’s.

Most disturbing is the crew of unsavory hard-right activists who used print and social media to put forward a more unadulterated form of hatred – groups such as Ontario Proud and the Toronto Sun tabloid. The latter developed a campaign against the NDP’s proposals to provide rights and services to immigrants and refugees, claiming that it would waste resources necessary to provide services to “deserving” Ontarians. Ford has refused to dissociate himself from these groups.

As a sidelight, a few days before the election, the widow of Doug’s brother Rob announced a lawsuit, accusing the future premier of cheating her and her family out of Rob’s inheritance and running the family business into the ground. Like the accusations of Trump’s philandering and sexual assaults on women, it had no effect on the election’s outcome.

Resisting Ford and His Agenda

Within progressive spaces, social activist groups, left organizations, trade unions, and communities, there are feverish discussions about how to resist Ford. This will not be easy.

Many are looking at the last time the hard right was elected in this province. In the mid-1990s, after small but determined groups of anti-poverty and community groups organized various protests against the first attacks of the Harris government (a 21 per cent cut in welfare rates and elimination of an anti-scab law), the trade union movement organized.

The Days of Action were a series of one-day, rotating general strikes and mass demonstrations, co-organized by the Ontario Federation of Labour (in the name of a bitterly divided union movement), in partnership with local coalitions of social and community activist movements and groups. Hundreds of thousands of workers struck their employers, joining with community members and marching together in mass rallies.

The key to the success of this tactic were the mass, intensive education campaigns with workers in each city, many of whom had voted for the PC. The education campaigns succeeded in convincing a number of workers not only to change their minds, but to engage in illegal strikes against their employers, forcing the latter to pressure the government to change its policies.

The government was forced to moderate its offensive, though it was ultimately reelected four years later. But the change in attitudes by many workers and the experience of organizing extra-parliamentary struggle marked a major step forward for province’s working class and helped to transform some unions’ culture. That later set the stage for further movements like the anti-globalization mobilizations within unions.

There are several lessons that one can quickly draw from the experience of the Days of Action and the fightback against right-wing populist regimes elsewhere. Clearly, without engaging the working class as a whole, in unions as well as communities, you can’t build a movement that can confront both employers and the government. Simply taking verbal pot shots at the obvious buffoonery of Ford (or Trump for that matter) doesn’t change anything. It simply emboldens their base.

There has be a series of alternative policies and approaches popularized across the working class that can address many of the workers who supported Ford and his party. Mass democratic movements of workers, women, indigenous, LGBTQ people, tenants, and more need to be ready to disrupt the workings of the system that Ford looks to impose. This won’t be easy.

The NDP (like the Democrats in the USA) will include elements that can be part of any resistance movement. Some of the newly elected MPPs have excellent activist histories that have placed them decidedly to the left of the party’s leadership. They should be welcomed as allies.

On the other hand, the NDP has a history of limiting the space for left critiques and activism within its caucus. Leader Horwath has already made moves to limit the party’s role to being an official parliamentary opposition and a government-in-waiting. This doesn’t bode well for the NDP’s potential role in any movement.

But it is critical not to subordinate any movement’s autonomy or leadership to that of a moderate, electoral political party like the NDP. It is important to keep in mind that the latter only became the center of electoral opposition to Ford because of the collapse of the Liberals and the lack of any real left alternative.

Most important is to build what was completely lacking in the last major popular push against the Harris years: socialists have to work with allies to change the opinions and understanding of working people who look to the false solutions of Ford. This can’t be done in isolation, but as part of building an alternative resistance in unions, communities, and other working-class spaces and institutions.

It means combining socialist principles with deeper education about the causes and solutions to challenges posed by neoliberalism, along with learning about right-wing populism and its agenda. Socialists need to argue that a clear analysis of the conjuncture and of the nature of our forces and those on the other side is essential in building solid resistance. This has to be done inside and alongside unions and working-class institutions and spaces and social movements, around all kinds of issues that have a class component: housing, transportation, education, workplace issues, jobs, social programs, racism, sexism, homophobia, and more.

Upcoming municipal elections across Ontario in October provide a potential space to mobilize resistance across the province if the Left can build sectoral networks around the above issues, in alliance with elected officials, candidates, and community and labour activists.

Socialist organizations and individuals are small and isolated. We can’t control the larger course of events, but we can contribute toward building a countermovement against Ford and the broader right-wing populist push he represents – a movement that can ultimately move from playing defense against these forces to offense.

*

Herman Rosenfeld is a Toronto-based socialist activist, educator, organizer and writer. He is a retired national staffperson with the Canadian Auto Workers (now Unifor), and worked in their Education Department.

Since 2002, Guantanamo Bay has held a total of 780 prisoners. In this time it has become a global symbol of injustice: a place which stands for torture, abuse, and indefinite detention.Since 2002, Guantanamo Bay has held a total of 780 prisoners. In this time it has become a global symbol of injustice: a place which stands for torture, abuse, and indefinite detention.

Over the last 15 years, the Government has attempted to suppress the truth about Guantanamo. In response, we have been working to bring the facts to the public. As it turns out, Guantanamo is not a prison full of the “worst of the worst,” but a prison full of mistakes.

Here, we bring you 7 facts that you may not know about America’s infamous illegal prison:

1. Most detainees were sold to the US for enormous bounties

The vast majority of detainees in Guantanamo (86%) were not captured by US forces. Instead the Government filled the prison with people they bought for bounties. The US flew planes over parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan offering $5,000 for any “suspicious person.” This amounted to approximately seven years’ average salary for most people in the area, encouraging them to turn over innocent men in exchange for a life-changing amount of money.

Since then, it has turned out they got it wrong most of the time. It didn’t even take long for those in charge to see their mistake– as early as 2002, Guantanamo’s operational commander complained that he was being sent too many “mickey mouse” detainees.

2. The Bush administration decided that the prisoners had no rights, and Reprieve was a big part of changing that

After the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo in 2002, the Bush administration claimed that the Geneva Convention – the rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war – did not apply. As a result, the detainees were denied access to lawyers, and the right to challenge their detention.  This was until Reprieve’s founder Clive Stafford Smith and two other lawyers successfully challenged President Bush in the Supreme Court. They won access to Guantanamo, opened it up and began representing the prisoners held there. Since then, we have gone on to secure the release of over 80 detainees – more than any other organization.

3. All the prisoners initially faced the death penalty

All the detainees in Guantanamo faced a death sentence. Clive Stafford Smith had spent 25 years defending people on death rows in America’s Deep South before turning to Guantanamo.

4. At least 15 children have been held in Guantanamo

One of the youngest detainees in Guantanamo was Mohammed El Gharani, who was just 14 years old when he was taken there. Despite being a child, Mohammed was tortured, including having his head slammed against the floor, and cigarettes stubbed out on his arm. Mohammed was held for a total of seven years without charge or trial, until Reprieve lawyers won a court order for his release in 2009.

5. More men have died in Guantanamo than have been convicted of a crime

In total, only 8 men held in Guantanamo have ever been convicted, and 4 of these convictions have since been reversed. But in total, 9 men have died in the prison without ever being charged with a crime.

6. Over 90% of Guantanamo detainees have been released without charge

730 men have been released without charge from Guantanamo, often after having endured years of suffering and abuse.
Now, 41 prisoners remained detained, including many who have not be charged or given a fair trial, and some who have been cleared for release. Many of these detainees have been subjected to horrifying torture and abuse.

7. Guantanamo is possibly the world’s most expensive prison

It costs the US tax payer $445 million a year to keep the remaining 41 detainees held in Guantanamo. This means that it costs $29,000 per prisoner per night to keep Guantanamo open – far more than any federal prison.

Featured image is from Reprieve US.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Seven Things You Didn’t Know About Guantanamo Bay
  • Tags:

Junk Food and the Upsurge of Diabetes: A Global Phenomenon

June 25th, 2018 by Richard Galustian

In this month’s prestigious British Medical Journal, The Lancet, has given considerable coverage in its June issue to the fact of the dangerous upsurge for both young and old of the variety of Diabetes which is becoming one of the largest global health crises of the 21st century.

The Lancet is the oldest medical journal in the world, founded in 1823.

In short, the etymology of the name of the journal was intended to convey excellence in medical research and to provide the “light of wisdom”.

Once thought of as a disease that only affected older people, diabetes is now being diagnosed increasingly in people under the age of 20, the vast implications of which have yet to be fully understood nor appreciated.

Alarming rising rates have been recorded in the first decade of the 21st century, not only in America and Europe, but particularly the Middle East and Africa, of diabetes which has been shocking to say the least. Asian countries, India and China show similar trends.

The most influential factor in the increase in diabetes, in the 5 to 15 age group, is junk food.

Image result for the lancet

More and more young people are developing the early stages of diabetes and those that are diagnosed and some even hospitalised due to further complications of the disease, such as kidney disease and teenagers incredibly having heart attacks, costs a country’s health system considerably and in addition  in terms of lost wages and productivity where adults are concerned.

A main goal is to reduce the rates of hospitalisation, and help those diagnosed to better manage their care, with simpler smaller insulin delivery systems that take some of the inevitable embarrassment and stigma away from the disease, so improving children and the publics knowledge of diabetes is a priority.

The bottom line, especially for our children and grandchildren, is to limit or eradicate eating junk foods. Such so called food is calorie-dense and nutrient poor. In recent decades, junk food, essentially fast food and convenience food consumption in America alone increased dramatically, with more than 25 percent of all people now consuming predominantly junk food diets. This trend has occurred concurrently with rising epidemics of numerous chronic diseases and accounts for a long list of reasons why eating junk food is bad. It directly contributes to the on set of diabetes; full stop!

Also, junk food plays a major role in the obesity epidemic. By the year 2050, the rate of obesity in America is expected to reach 45 percent, according to researchers at Harvard University.

Children who eat fast food as a regular part of their diets consume more fat, carbohydrates and processed sugar, with less fibre, than those who do not eat fast food regularly. Junk food in these children’s diets accounts for 187 extra calories per day, leading to 6 additional pounds of weight gain per year. Obesity increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other chronic health conditions.

Such fast foods may be connected to depression and therefore the increase in Doctors over prescribing opioids, the dangers of which are now only too well known. In contrast, diets that had vegetables, whole grains and lactose, a sugar that comes from milk and other dairy products, had protective effects against developing depression.

There are increased risks of becoming diabetic for adolescents and young adults due a lack of consideration by us parents in the overall lifestyle plan we should, as responsible adults, impose on our children. The easy fix of allowing one’s child to spend way too much time on their iPhones, on video games and bingeing on McDonalds et al. By our accepting that our children live what is in effect a sedentary lifestyle is also a major contributor to the onset of diabetes. In a sense advances in technology and new gadgets make children less physically active, less sportive than bygone generations and thus nature’s balance is ‘thrown off’ because of the easy and quick nature of life, our acceptance that our child ‘keeps quiet’ makes our life as parents easier. So we must share the bulk of the blame for the onset of diabetes in children. We consciously allow their addiction to their ‘hand helds’ whilst also acquiescing to their requests for junk foods from pizzas to burgers usually accompanied by a variety of sugary drinks that come almost free with such so called meals.

And, finally, we are helping increase the insistence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in our children, which was very recently reiterated in an exhaustive study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry on May 23, 2018.

The fact is the prevalence of a variety of different types of diabetes is increasing worldwide. We must take corrective action for future generations before its too late by reintroducing in our family value rules the concept of discipline, rationing our children’s use of their electronic gadgetry whilst encouraging outside or inside sporting activities particularly team sports.

*

Richard Galustian is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

A History of US Nuclear Weapons in South Korea

June 25th, 2018 by Hans M. Kristensen

North Korea’s six nuclear tests and progress developing a missile force have triggered calls for the United States to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons – sometimes known as “battlefield” or “theater” nuclear weapons – to South Korea. While we have heard such calls before, they are getting louder as the Trump administration nears completion of its Nuclear Posture Review. They come from defense hawks in both Washington and Seoul.

Proponents of redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea appear to believe that doing so would better deter Pyongyang and reassure Seoul. However, deterrence and reassurance are complicated and constantly shifting goals. They do not necessarily function predictably or follow logic. As such, the way Washington practices nuclear deterrence and reassurance on the Korean Peninsula has changed significantly over the years. It would be misguided – potentially even catastrophic – to apply lessons from the past to the present or future.

During the Cold War, the United States deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea continuously for 33 years, from January 1958 to December 1991. It did so to deter aggression from North Korea (which did not yet have nuclear weapons) and to some extent also from Russia and China. In fact, the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 to 1953, served as a catalyst for the initial release of US nuclear weapons from the custody of the civilian Atomic Energy Commission to the armed forces for potential use in a conflict (Defense Threat Reduction Agency 1998 Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 1998. “Defense Special Weapons Agency 1947–1997.” [Google Scholar], 7–8).

The first US nuclear weapons in South Korea arrived four-and-a-half years after the Korean War ended and four years after forward deployment of nuclear weapons began in Europe. Over the years, the numbers and types deployed in South Korea changed frequently. At one point in the mid-to-late 1960s, as many as eight different types were deployed at the same time, and the arsenal peaked at an all-time high of approximately 950 nuclear warheads in 1967.

Over the following quarter century, the US nuclear arsenal in South Korea gradually declined as weapon systems were withdrawn or retired and conventional capabilities improved. By the early 1980s, the arsenal had shrunk to between 200 and 300 weapons, and it declined to around 100 by 1990. Then on September 27, 1991, in a televised address, President George H.W. Bush announced the US decision to “eliminate its entire worldwide inventory of ground-launched, short-range, that is, theater nuclear weapons.” He went on, “We will bring home and destroy all of our nuclear artillery shells and short-range ballistic missile warheads” (Bush 1991 Bush, G. H. W. 1991. “Address to the Nation on Reducing United States and Soviet Nuclear Weapons.” September 27. Link [Google Scholar]). The initiative was focused on the Soviet Union; South Korea was a side chapter – indeed, Bush did not even mention the South Korean-based weapons in his speech. The nuclear artillery and bombs that remained in South Korea at the time of the address were all withdrawn by December 1991.

Since then, the United States has protected South Korea (and Japan) under a nuclear umbrella made up of several types of weapons: dual-capable fighter-bombers and strategic nuclear forces in the form of bombers and submarines.11. The United States also has land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can target North Korea. To reach North Korea, though, these ICBMs would have to overfly Russia and China, so they are thought to be focused on targeting Russia.View all notes Until 1994, US aircraft carriers were also equipped to deliver nuclear bombs, but as noted in the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review, the US government decided at that time to denuclearize all surface ships. The military retained the nuclear Tomahawk Land-Attack Cruise Missile, but stored it on land until retiring it in 2011.

Tactical nuclear weapons deployments

The first half of the period during which the United States deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea is documented in a 1978 Defense Department publication, History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through December 1977.22. A PDF version of this redacted document is available here.View all notes“South Korea” is redacted from the report’s list of deployment locations, but Nuclear Notebook co-author Robert S. Norris, who obtained a declassified version under the Freedom of Information Act, was able to determine that South Korea is the seventeenth country on the report’s chronological deployment list (Norris, Arkin, and Burr 1999a Norris, R.W. M. Arkin, and W. Burr1999a. “Where They Were.” Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsNovember/December, pp. 2635. doi:10.1080/00963402.1999.11460389.[Taylor & Francis Online][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]1999b Norris, R.W. M. Arkin, and W. Burr1999b. “‘Appendix B’: Deployments by Country, 1951-1977,” NRDC Nuclear Notebook.” Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsNovember/December, pp. 6667. doi:10.2968/055006019.[Crossref][Google Scholar]). The second half of the South Korean deployment, from 1978 to 1991, has not been officially declassified, but we have pieced together a variety of sources to form a complete history (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. US nuclear weapons in South Korea.

The history shows a dramatic nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula shortly after the end of the Korean War. In the first month, January 1958, the United States deployed four (or possibly five) nuclear weapon systems with approximately 150 warheads. The systems included the Honest John surface-to-surface missile, the Atomic-Demolition Munition nuclear landmine, and two nuclear artillery weapons, the 280-millimeter gun and the 8-inch (203-millimeter) howitzer.

The Matador cruise missile also appears to have been deployed in 1958, according to a United Nations Command announcement reported by the US Armed Forces publication Pacific Stars and Stripes (“UNC in Korea Gets Matador Missiles” 1958 UNC in Korea Gets Matador Missiles.” Pacific Stars and StripesDecember 181958, pp. 12. For a copy of this article, see this. [Google Scholar]). But for some reason, the weapon is not listed in the Defense Department’s custody report. It is possible that the authors of the custody report made a mistake or that the missile was deployed without warheads.

The Davy Crockett projectile was deployed in South Korea between July 1962 and June 1968. The warhead had selective yields up to 0.25 kilotons. The projectile weighed only 34.5 kg (76 lbs). Source: nukestrat.com

Nuclear bombs for fighter-bombers arrived next, in March 1958, followed by three surface-to-surface missile systems – the Lacrosse, Davy Crockett, and Sergeant – between July 1960 and September 1963. Within five years of the first deployment, the South Korea-based stockpile had ballooned to seven different nuclear weapon systems and 600 warheads in total.

The dual-mission Nike Hercules anti-air and surface-to-surface missile arrived in January 1961, and finally, the 155-millimeter howitzer arrived in October 1964. At the peak of this build-up, in 1967, eight weapon systems with a total of 950 nuclear warheads were deployed in South Korea.

Four of the weapon types only remained deployed for a few years, while the others stayed for decades. The most enduring of them all was the 8-inch howitzer, the only nuclear weapon system deployed throughout the entire 33-year period.

While most of the US nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea played only a regional role due to their relatively limited range, the bombs played a unique role that also included strategic missions. In 1974, for example, the US Air Force strapped nuclear bombs under the wings of four F-4D Phantom jets of the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing parked at the end of the Kunsan Air Base runway (US Pacific Command 1975 US Pacific Command. 1975. “Command History 1974, Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1. Partially Declassified and Obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes.” Excerpts. Link [Google Scholar], vol. 1, 264–265). The jets were kept in a heightened state of readiness known as Quick Reaction Alert less than 610 miles (1000 kilometers) from Beijing and Shanghai and 550 miles (890 kilometers) from the Soviet Pacific Fleet headquarters at Vladivostok.

The 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Kunsan formed part of a three-base strike force against China together with the 18th Tactical Fighter Wing at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa and the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Clark Air Base in the Philippines. This strike force was part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), the US military’s strategic nuclear war plan. Only Kunsan had aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert at the time, but all three bases had a “major SIOP non-alert role,” according to Pacific Command.

The 18th Tactical Fighter Wing SIOP non-alert role is noteworthy because it shows that the United States continued nuclear strike operations from Okinawa after returning the island to Japanese control and removing nuclear weapons in June 1972. The continued SIOP role at Kadena suggests that a diplomatic arrangement likely existed between the United States and Japan to allow deployment of nuclear bombs to Okinawa in a crisis.

Meanwhile, in the 1970s, the United States was considering deployments of newer types of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea. These included the Lance surface-to-surface missile, but apparently only with conventional warheads. The Lance deployment is an interesting example of the trade-off between different weapons’ capabilities. The US Army recommended deploying the Lance to South Korea because it saw Korea “as the most likely area requiring use of ground nuclear weapons” and because building extra storage on Guam would have been expensive (US Pacific Command 1977 US Pacific Command. 1977. “Command History 1976, Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1. Partially Declassified and Obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes.” Excerpts, Link. [Google Scholar], vol. 1). The commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Command agreed, but recommended that the aging Honest John and Nike Hercules systems be withdrawn as the Lance arrived. The commander of US forces in Korea also agreed on the need for the Lance, but said it would be unacceptable to withdraw the Nike Hercules because of its unique capability to destroy enemy aircraft with nuclear airbursts (US Pacific Command 1977 US Pacific Command. 1977. “Command History 1976, Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1. Partially Declassified and Obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes.” Excerpts, Link. [Google Scholar], vol. 1).

The Lance surface-to-surface missile was deployed to South Korea, but only in a conventional version. The nuclear warheads stranded in Guam. (Source: nukestrat.com)

As this debate went on, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were concerned that delays in deploying the Lance to South Korea could delay broader nuclear deployment adjustments in the Pacific. So the Lance warheads were rushed from the United States to Guam. By the end of December 1976, all 54 authorized W70 Lance warheads were in place in their storage bunkers on Guam.

The number of US tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea declined from approximately 640 weapons in 1974 to 150 weapons in 1982, a significant reduction for which there are different explanations.

In a history covering this time period, the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency reported that in 1974, the US Pacific Command commander-in-chief identified new tactics for using advanced conventional weapons to defend Korea, enabling his command to reduce dependence on early nuclear escalation in its Korean contingency plans (Defense Threat Reduction Agency 1998 Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 1998. “Defense Special Weapons Agency 1947–1997.”. [Google Scholar], 19).

While new conventional weapon tactics were indeed part of the reason for the reduction, the Agency’s history left out the effect of a major security review of nuclear weapon storage sites in the Pacific. The review – which also examined diplomatic agreements for storage in allied countries and overall nuclear weapon requirements in the region – found that security was unsatisfactory, diplomatic arrangements inadequate, and the number of weapons deployed in excess of war-planning requirements (US Pacific Command 1975 US Pacific Command. 1975. “Command History 1974, Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1. Partially Declassified and Obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes.” Excerpts. Link [Google Scholar], vol. 1, 262–263).

As a result, Washington’s fiscal 1977 nuclear weapons deployment plan trimmed the posture in Korea and the region at large, initiating the withdrawal of the Honest John, Nike Hercules, and Sergeant missile systems from South Korea and removing 140 nuclear weapons from the Philippines. In mid-1977, according to the US Pacific Command commander-in-chief, nuclear weapons in South Korea were stored at three sites: Camp Ames, Kunsan Air Base, and Osan Air Base. The nuclear weapons storage site at Osan Air Base was deactivated in late 1977.

The withdrawal of nuclear weapons from South Korea

By the time President Bush announced the Presidential Nuclear Initiative in September 1991, roughly 100 warheads remained in Korea. As a result of the initiative, the US Pacific Command was tasked with developing a plan to remove Artillery Fired Atomic Projectiles, nuclear Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, nuclear strike bombs, and nuclear depth bombs from the Pacific area at the earliest opportunity, according to a Pacific Command history (US Pacific Command 1992 US Pacific Command. 1992. “Command History 1991.” Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1, p. 91. Partially declassified and obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes. Excerpts, Link. [Google Scholar], vol. 1, 91). The history also reports that the Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization for fiscal 1991 and 1992 (known as National Security Directive 64), signed on November 5, 1991, “cleared the way for the actual return of all land-based Naval air delivered and sea-based tactical nuclear weapons to US territory, the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Korea, and other withdrawals in Europe” (US Pacific Command 1992 US Pacific Command. 1992. “Command History 1991.” Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1, p. 91. Partially declassified and obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes. Excerpts, Link. [Google Scholar], vol. 1, 91).

Of the 60 artillery shells and 40 B61 bombs left in Korea, the nuclear artillery shells had “first priority for transportation,” according to the US Pacific Command. As such, the B61 bombs remained in the country a little longer until the artillery shells were gone. But the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed the commander of US Pacific Command that “the withdrawal of weapons from Korea had highest priority for transportation assets” in the region and that the withdrawal should begin before the next meeting of the South Korea–United States Military Committee and Security Committee on November 20–22, 1991 (US Pacific Command 1992 US Pacific Command. 1992. “Command History 1991.” Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1, p. 91. Partially declassified and obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes. Excerpts, Link. [Google Scholar], vol. 1, 92).

As the nuclear artillery shells began leaving Kunsan Air Base, the Washington Postreported on October 12, 1991, that the United States had decided to leave the B61 bombs behind for the time being (Oberdorfer 1991 Oberdorfer, D. 1991. “Airborne U.S. A-Arms to Stay in South Korea.” Washington PostOctober 12, p. A20. This article is no longer fully available on the Internet but is partially displayed here. [Google Scholar]). But this simply reflected the decision to give the artillery shells first transportation priority. And the following week, US government officials told the New York Times that the aircraft bombs would also, in fact, be withdrawn (Rosenbaum 1991 Rosenbaum, D. E. 1991. “U.S. To Pull A-Bombs from South Korea.” New York TimesOctober 20, p. 3. [Google Scholar]). The officials said the decision to withdraw nuclear weapons from South Korea had been made in part to persuade North Korea to permit international inspection of its nuclear facilities and in part because the US military no longer thought that the nuclear bombs were necessary to defend South Korea.

After some initial resistance, North Korea announced that it would allow inspections of its facilities if the US removed its nuclear weapons from South Korea. South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported on November 28, 1991, that South Korea and the United States had agreed to complete the withdrawal by the end of the year and declare the South free of nuclear weapons during President Bush’s scheduled visit to Seoul in early January 1992. “North Korea’s announcement [that it would allow inspections if US nuclear weapons were removed from the South] prompted the two allies to advance the schedule to removing nuclear arms deployed with the US forces in Korea,” a South Korean government source told the news agency.33. See “U.S. Begins Withdrawal of Nuclear Weapons” 1991U.S. Begins Withdrawal of Nuclear Weapons: Report.” AFP (Seoul), November 281991. [Google Scholar], “Korea-Nuclear” 1991Korea-Nuclear.” Associated Press(Seoul), November 281991. [Google Scholar], and “U.S. Starts Removing Nuclear Weapons from S. Korea” 1991U.S. Starts Removing Nuclear Weapons from S. Korea – Reports Seoul.” Reuters (Seoul), November281991. [Google Scholar].View all notes

By mid-December, South Korean government officials had told reporters that the United States had completed its planned withdrawal of nuclear weapons from South Korea. Finally, on December 18, 1991, South Korean President Roh Tae Woo publicly declared that “there do not exist any nuclear weapons whatsoever anywhere in the Republic of Korea” (Bulman 1991 Bulman, R. 1991. “No A-Arms in S. Korea, Roh Says.” Washington PostDecember 19, p. A38.. [Google Scholar]). When asked about Roh’s declaration, President Bush said that he “heard what Roh said and I’m not about to argue with him” (“Pyongyang Has to Take the Warning Seriously” 1991Pyongyang Has to Take the Warning Seriously: U.S. Draws up Option for Strike against North Korea.” Los Angeles TimesDecember 261991.. [Google Scholar]).

North Korea’s first response to the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from the peninsula was to declare that it would still be threatened by US long-range nuclear weapons based elsewhere. On November 1, 1991, Reuters reported an article in the official North Korean daily Rodong Sinmun that ridiculed the United States for talking about removing nuclear weapons from South Korea while maintaining its nuclear umbrella over the area. “Under such conditions,” the paper said, “the US nuclear threat to us would not be dispelled, even though nuclear weapons are taken out of South Korea.” On January 30, 1992, however, North Korea signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreeing to inspections of its nuclear facilities (“North Korea OKs Nuclear Inspections” 1992North Korea OKs Nuclear Inspections.” Washington Times31January 1992, p. 1. [Google Scholar] and Wise 1992Wise, M. Z. 1992. “North Korea Signs Agreement for Inspections of Nuclear Sites.” Washington PostJanuary 31, p. A15. [Google Scholar]).

Strategic nuclear forces

In addition to tactical nuclear forces, US strategic nuclear weapons also played (and continue to play) an important role in defending South Korea. This role has taken several forms over the years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, for example, the US Navy suddenly began conducting port visits to South Korea with nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). It made just a few visits in 1976 and 1978, but the frequency increased significantly with more than a dozen visits in 1979 and 1980. Over the course of five years, there were 35 SSBN visits, all to Chinhae, with some vessels visiting several times each year (see Table 1). All the visits were by older Polaris submarines that only operated in the Pacific; each carried 16 missiles with up to 48 nuclear warheads.

See here for details on US SSBN visits to South Korea.

The reason for these port visits is still unclear, but the timing coincided with the period when the United States significantly reduced deployment of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Korea. This period overlapped with the years when the United States discovered and attempted to stop South Korea’s secret program to develop nuclear weapons.44. For an excellent overview of US efforts to stop the South Korean nuclear weapons program, see Burr (2017aBurr, W. 2017a. “Stopping Korea From Going Nuclear, Part I.” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 582, March 22.. [Google Scholar]2017b Burr, W. 2017b. “Stopping Korea From Going Nuclear, Part II,” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 584, April 12.. [Google Scholar]).View all notes (It also so happens that South Korea was going through political turmoil at the time, culminating with the assassination of President Park Chung-hee on October 26, 1979.) It is possible that the SSBN visits were an explicit attempt to reassure Seoul about the US security commitment.

The SSBN visits ended when the remaining Polaris submarines were retired in 1981, and even though the US Navy gradually built up its fleet of new Ohio-class submarines in the Pacific, American SSBNs have not visited South Korea since January 1981. Yet Ohio SSBNs continue to play an important role in targeting North Korea. With their much longer-range missiles, Ohio SSBNs can patrol much further from their targets than earlier submarines. A 1999 inspection of the Trident submarine command and control system identified the SSBNs as “mission critical systems” of “particular importance” to US forces in South Korea (Defense Department 1999 Defense Department. 1999Inspector General, Year 2000 Compliance of the Trident Submarine Command and Control System. Report Number 99-167, May 24, 1999, p. 1. Link. [Google Scholar], 1). Except for a lone SSBN visit to Guam in 1988, though, Ohio-class submarines did not conduct port visits to the Western Pacific for 35 years.

That changed on October 31, 2016, when the USS Pennsylvania (SSBN-735) arrived in Guam for a highly publicized visit to promote US security commitments to South Korea and Japan. Military delegations from both countries were brought to Guam and given a tour and briefings onboard the submarine, which was carrying an estimated 90 nuclear warheads.

“This specific visit to Guam reflects the United States’ commitment to its allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific,” the US Strategic Command publicly announced, apparently a signal that the US nuclear umbrella also extends over the Indian Ocean (US Strategic Command 2016 US Strategic Command. 2016. “Public Affairs, “USS Pennsylvania Arrives in Guam for Port Visit.” October 13.. [Google Scholar]).

In addition to strategic submarines, the United States also deploys heavy bombers to Guam on extended rotational deployments. These deployments include B-2 and B-52 nuclear-capable bombers that, respectively, can deliver nuclear gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles, although nuclear weapons are not brought to Guam with the bombers. Three to six bombers at a time deploy to Guam with hundreds of support personnel from their home bases in the continental United States, for a continuous presence on the island. When one squadron returns, it is immediately replaced by another. These operations have been conducted since 2004.

From Guam, the nuclear-capable bombers deploy on long sorties near South Korea and Japan to signal to North Korea and other potential adversaries that they would be used to defend US allies in the region if necessary. Shortly after North Korea’s fourth nuclear test in January 2016, for example, a nuclear-capable B-52 overflew Osan Air Base in northern South Korea near the North Korean border (US Air Force 2016US Air Force. 2016. “ROK/US Alliance Aircraft Conduct Extended Deterrence Mission.” January 10. Link [Google Scholar]).

Strategy and policy

As this history shows, the United States relied on nuclear weapons in its strategy to deter North Korea long before the latter developed nuclear weapons of its own. Several incidents, dating as far back as the Korean War in the 1950s, show nuclear weapons playing a role in the US–North Korea relationship. In one that became known as the “Tree-Trimming Incident” in August 1976, US forces in Korea were placed on alert in response to a fatal skirmish between US and North Korean border guards over American attempts to trim a tree in the demilitarized zone. As part of the alert, the United States deployed nuclear and other forces in operations that signaled preparations for an attack on North Korea. Nuclear-capable B-52 bombers flew north from Guam in the direction of Pyongyang. It is not clear whether North Korean radars could see the bombers, but since North Korean soldiers did not interfere with tree trimming again, some people may have concluded that the US nuclear threat worked (Norris and Kristensen 2006 Norris, R. S., and H. M. Kristensen 2006. “‘U.S. Nuclear Threats: Then and Now,’ NRDC Nuclear Notebook.” Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsSeptember/October, p. 70. Link. [Google Scholar]).

After the remaining US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from South Korea in 1991, the Clinton administration’s Nuclear Posture Review in 1993–1994 examined the role of nuclear weapons in deterring so-called “rogue states” from developing or using their own nuclear weapons. The review concluded that nuclear weapons were unlikely to deter acquisition of nuclear weapons, but could deter their use. Nonetheless, the final review briefing in September 1994 described the role of nuclear weapons as deterring both use and acquisition of nuclear weapons.55. For a review of the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review examination of the role of nuclear weapons against proliferators, see Kristensen (2005 Kristensen, H. M. 2005. “Nuclear Posture Review Working Group 5: The Relationship between Alternative Nuclear Postures and Counterproliferation Policy.” nukestrat.comJuly 11.. [Google Scholar]).View all notes

This coincided with North Korea and the United States signing the Agreed Framework in October 1994, temporarily freezing North Korea’s plutonium production capabilities and placing them under IAEA safeguards. North Korean missile tests, which were not part of the agreement, caused significant tension, and intelligence reports that North Korea was working on a secret uranium enrichment program caused the incoming George W. Bush administration to adopt a harsher policy.66. For an overview of the Agreed Framework, see Davenport (2017 Davenport, K. 2017. “The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance.” Arms Control Association, Fact Sheet (Accessed August 2017).. [Google Scholar]).View all notes Eventually the Agreed Framework collapsed, and in 2001 (the review was completed in December 2001 but not officially published until January 2002), the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review identified a North Korean attack on South Korea as an “immediate contingency” for which the United States had to be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Among the so-called “rogue states,” the review said, “North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns” (Defense Department 2002 Defense Department. 2002. “Office of the Secretary of Defense.” Nuclear Posture Review ReportJanuary 8, 2002, p. 16. Link. [Google Scholar], 16). In 2004, as a clear signal to North Korea and other adversaries in the region, the US Air Force began rotational deployments of strategic bombers to Guam.

After North Korea conducted its first two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review in 2010 sought to “revert” the nuclear ambitions of North Korea. This review did not explicitly mention a role for nuclear weapons in deterring North Korea, but described “a small number of [tactical] nuclear weapons stored in the United States, available for global deployment in support of extended deterrence to allies and partners” (Defense Department 2010 Defense Department. 2010. “Office of the Secretary of Defense.” Nuclear Posture Review ReportApril, pp. 2728. [Google Scholar], 27–28).

The 2010 Review did not mention the possibility of forward deploying nuclear weapons to South Korea. So it came as a surprise that Gary Samore, then the White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction, said the United States would redeploy nuclear weapons to South Korea if the South Korean government asked it to, according to a 2011 South Korean news report (Ser Myo-Ja 2011 Ser Myo-Ja 2011. “U.S. Arms Control Chief Backs Nuke Redeployment.” Korea Joongang DailyMarch 1.. [Google Scholar]). The White House quickly corrected the record, with a spokesperson explaining in the Financial Times that “tactical nuclear weapons are unnecessary for the defense of South Korea and we have no plan or intention to return them” to the country (Dombey 2011 Dombey, D. 2011. “US Rules Out Nuclear Redeployment in S Korea.” Financial TimesMarch 1.. [Google Scholar]).

The nuclear redeployment lobby

The conclusion that “tactical nuclear weapons are unnecessary for the defense of South Korea” is as valid today as it was in 2011, despite North Korea’s continued nuclear tests and missile development. Even so, some commentators in the United States and South Korea have advocated either redeploying US tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea or modifying dual-capable aircraft operations to signal or prepare for such a decision.

THAAD (Source: New Eastern Outlook)

In Washington, some former officials involved in the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review have recommended that it consider whether the United States should “strengthen deterrence and assurance in the Asia-Pacific region (in consultation with Japan and South Korea) by 1) demonstrat[ing] the capability to deploy [dual-capable aircraft] to bases in South Korea and Japan, 2) equip[ing] aircraft carriers with nuclear capability (via the F-35C), and 3) bring[ing] back TLAM-N [sea-launched cruise missiles] on attack submarines” (Harvey 2017 Harvey, J. R. 2017. “Nuclear Modernization: Six Months Under Trump – How Are We Doing.” Presentation to the AFA-Peter Huessy Breakfast Seminar Series, Capitol Hill Club, Washington, D.C., June 13, p. 6. Link. [Google Scholar]).

In Seoul, calls for redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons have become more vocal in the past few years. A poll conducted in August 2017 by a South Korean cable news channel found that 68 percent of South Koreans support redeploying US tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea (Lee 2017 Lee, M. Y. H. 2017. “More than Ever: South Koreans Want Their Own Nuclear Weapons.” Washington PostSeptember 13.. [Google Scholar]).

At the US–South Korean defense ministerial meeting in August 2017, a senior South Korean government official told reporters that Defense Minister Song Young-moo mentioned the “tactical nuclear deployment issue” (Him Jun 2017). A report in the Washington Post said Song later told lawmakers he had told US Defense Secretary James Mattis that “some South Korean lawmakers and media are strongly pushing for tactical nuclear weapons” to be redeployed to South Korea and that “redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons is an alternative worth a full review” (Fifield 2017 Fifield, A. 2017. “South Korea’s Defense Minister Suggests Return of Tactical U.S. Nuclear Weapons.” Washington PostSeptember 4.. [Google Scholar]).

Song later denied he had actually requested redeployment of the weapons (“Allies Seek to Deploy Aircraft Carrier” 2017 Allies Seek to Deploy Aircraft Carrier, Strategic Bomber in Response to N.K. Nuke Test.” Yonhap News AgencySeptember 42017, Link. [Google Scholar]), and Foreign Minister Kang Hyung-wha explicitly stated that Seoul is not currently considering redeployment of US nuclear weapons (Minegishi 2017 Minegishi, H. 2017. “South Korea Leaves Door Open to US Nuclear Weapons.” Nikkei Asian ReviewSeptember 12. [Google Scholar]).

Implications

A decision to redeploy US tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea would provide no resolution of the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapons, but rather would further increase nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It would not make South Korea any safer and would likely increase nuclear risks.

Moreover, deploying US nuclear weapons a couple hundred miles from one of the most militarized and tense region of the world – closer to a nuclear adversary than any other US nuclear weapons – would expose the weapons to unique dangers. Kunsan Air Base, home of the 8th Fighter Wing – which used to be assigned the nuclear strike mission and could potentially be assigned it again – is only 198 kilometers (123 miles) from the North Korean border. Osan Air Base, which used to store US nuclear bombs and potentially could be certified to house them once again, is even closer, at only 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the border. The proximity would increase the risk of overreaction and escalation in a crisis, which could make it more likely that nuclear weapons would be used. Indeed, the uniquely tense situation is captured well by the motto of United States Forces Korea: “Fight Tonight.”

Redeployment would also have serious implications for broader regional security issues because it would likely be seen by China and Russia as increasing the nuclear threat against them. Several Chinese nuclear weapons sites would be within range, as would Beijing, which is less than 1000 kilometers (590 miles) from Kunsan Air Base. The Russian Pacific Fleet headquarters and several Russian nuclear weapons facilities are at similar distances. The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the region would likely be seen as an attempt to provide the United States with a regional nuclear strike option below the strategic level. This could influence Chinese and Russian deployments and strategies in ways that would undermine both South Korean and Japanese security.

There are those who have even called for Seoul to acquire its own nuclear weapons, and roughly 60 percent of the South Korean public apparently supports this idea (Lee 2017 Lee, M. Y. H. 2017. “More than Ever: South Koreans Want Their Own Nuclear Weapons.” Washington PostSeptember 13.. [Google Scholar]; Minegishi 2017 Minegishi, H. 2017. “South Korea Leaves Door Open to US Nuclear Weapons.” Nikkei Asian Review, September 12. [Google Scholar]). Doing so would not improve South Korean security – on the contrary. Such a move would, however, constitute a major break with long-held policy, violate South Korea’s international obligations, and potentially even trigger sanctions.

Supporters of a South Korean nuclear weapon argue that the North’s development of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) might make the United States less willing to defend – or even deterred from defending – South Korea. This “decoupling” argument has been made in numerous debates in other US allies throughout the nuclear era: Would Washington really risk sacrificing Los Angeles to defend Tokyo, or New York to defend Berlin? But a few North Korean ICBMs are unlikely to deter the United States any more than dozens of Chinese ones or hundreds of Russian ones. The United States is not just defending South Korea as a kind gesture, but because it has important and enduring economic and security interests in the region.

A better question is whether concern about the consequences of a North Korean nuclear attack on South Korea (or Japan) could make Washington reluctant to put nuclear pressure on Pyongyang in certain situations. The North Korean nuclear threat has not made the United States unwilling to defend South Korea but has already caused it to increase reliance on advanced conventional weapons to provide better extended deterrence options without having to cross the nuclear threshold. Advanced conventional deterrence has its own challenges and would not replace the nuclear option, but is a far more credible defense against Pyongyang than redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea. Conventional forces should reassure South Korea to the extent that anything can.

***

Hans M. Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC. His work focuses on researching and writing about the status of nuclear weapons and the policies that direct them. Kristensen is a co-author of the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook (Oxford University Press) and a frequent adviser to the news media on nuclear weapons policy and operations. Inquiries should be directed to FAS, 1725 DeSales St. NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC, 20036 USA; +1 (202) 546-3300.

Robert S. Norris is a senior fellow with the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC. His principal areas of expertise include writing and research on all aspects of the nuclear weapons programs of the United States, Soviet Union/Russia, Britain, France, and China, as well as India, Pakistan, and Israel. He is the author of Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man (2002). He has co-authored the Nuclear Notebook column since May 1987.

Notes

1. “Allies Seek to Deploy Aircraft Carrier, Strategic Bomber in Response to N.K. Nuke Test.” Yonhap News AgencySeptember 42017http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20170904010952315[Google Scholar]

2. Bulman, R. 1991. “No A-Arms in S. Korea, Roh Says.” Washington PostDecember 19, p. A38.https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/12/19/no-a-arms-in-s-korea-roh-says/b62e8f9e-fd08-498e-abd7-0d81184f1073/[Google Scholar]

3. Burr, W. 2017a. “Stopping Korea From Going Nuclear, Part I.” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 582, March 22http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb582-The-U.S.-and-the-South-Korean-Nuclear-Program,-1974-1976,-Part-1/ [Google Scholar]

4. Burr, W. 2017b. “Stopping Korea From Going Nuclear, Part II,” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 584, April 12http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb584-The-U.S.-and-the-South-Korean-Nuclear-Program,-1974-1976,-Part-2[Google Scholar]

5. Bush, G. H. W. 1991. “Address to the Nation on Reducing United States and Soviet Nuclear Weapons.” September 27https://bush41library.tamu.edu/archives/public-papers/3438[Google Scholar]

6. Davenport, K. 2017. “The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance.” Arms Control Association, Fact Sheet (Accessed August 2017).https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework[Google Scholar]

7. Defense Department. 1999Inspector General, Year 2000 Compliance of the Trident Submarine Command and Control System. Report Number 99-167, May 24, 1999, p. 1.http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy99/99-167.pdf[Google Scholar]

8. Defense Department. 2002. “Office of the Secretary of Defense.” Nuclear Posture Review Report,January 8, 2002, p. 16https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/2.6/NPR2001leaked.pdf[Google Scholar]

9. Defense Department. 2010. “Office of the Secretary of Defense.” Nuclear Posture Review Report,April, pp. 2728.http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/defenseReviews/NPR/2010_Nuclear_Posture_Review_Report.pdf[Google Scholar]

10 .Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 1998. “Defense Special Weapons Agency 1947–1997.”http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/History/DSWA_1947-1997.pdf[Google Scholar]

11. Dombey, D. 2011. “US Rules Out Nuclear Redeployment in S Korea.” Financial TimesMarch 1.https://www.ft.com/content/e8a2d456-43b0-11e0-b117-00144feabdc0[Google Scholar]

12. Fifield, A. 2017. “South Korea’s Defense Minister Suggests Return of Tactical U.S. Nuclear Weapons.” Washington PostSeptember 4https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/south-koreas-defense-minister-raises-the-idea-of-bringing-back-tactical-us-nuclear-weapons/2017/09/04/7a468314-9155-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html[Google Scholar]

13. Friedman, N. 1994. “U.S. Submarines Since 1945.” Annapolis, MarylandNaval Institute Press[Google Scholar]

14. Harvey, J. R. 2017. “Nuclear Modernization: Six Months Under Trump – How Are We Doing.” Presentation to the AFA-Peter Huessy Breakfast Seminar Series, Capitol Hill Club, Washington, D.C., June 13, p. 6.http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_aebf41192d574dfab6ec384190a195c0.pdf[Google Scholar]

15. “History of the USS Robert E. Lee.” SSBN 601Accessed January 22, 2003.http://www.ssbn601.com/history.asp [Google Scholar]

16. Hee Jun, K. 2017. “US, North Korea to Resume Talks on ‘Tactical Nuclear’ … Missile Guideline Revision.” August 31http://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?key=201708312159528477 [Google Scholar]

17. “Korea-Nuclear.” Associated Press (Seoul), November 281991[Google Scholar]

18. Kristensen, H. M. 2005. “Nuclear Posture Review Working Group 5: The Relationship between Alternative Nuclear Postures and Counterproliferation Policy.” nukestrat.comJuly 11.http://www.nukestrat.com/us/reviews/wg5.htm[Google Scholar]

19. Lee, M. Y. H. 2017. “More than Ever: South Koreans Want Their Own Nuclear Weapons.”Washington PostSeptember 13.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/09/13/most-south-koreans-dont-think-the-north-will-start-a-war-but-they-still-want-their-own-nuclear-weapons/[Google Scholar]

20. Minegishi, H. 2017. “South Korea Leaves Door Open to US Nuclear Weapons.” Nikkei Asian ReviewSeptember 12https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Pyongyang-provocation/South-Korea-leaves-door-open-to-US-nuclear-weapons [Google Scholar]

21. Norris, R.W. M. Arkin, and W. Burr 1999a. “Where They Were.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,November/December, pp. 2635. doi:10.1080/00963402.1999.11460389[Taylor & Francis Online][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]

22. Norris, R.W. M. Arkin, and W. Burr 1999b. “‘Appendix B’: Deployments by Country, 1951-1977,” NRDC Nuclear Notebook.” Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsNovember/December, pp. 6667. doi:10.2968/055006019[Crossref]; [Google Scholar]

23. Norris, R. S., and H. M. Kristensen 2006. “‘U.S. Nuclear Threats: Then and Now,’ NRDC Nuclear Notebook.” Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsSeptember/October, p. 70.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2006.11461021?needAccess=true[Google Scholar]

24. “North Korea OKs Nuclear Inspections.” Washington Times31 January 1992, p. 1[Google Scholar]

25. Oberdorfer, D. 1991. “Airborne U.S. A-Arms to Stay in South Korea.” Washington PostOctober12, p. A20. This article is no longer fully available on the Internet but is partially displayed here:https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1089496.html[Google Scholar]

26. “Pyongyang Has to Take the Warning Seriously: U.S. Draws up Option for Strike against North Korea.” Los Angeles TimesDecember 261991http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-26/local/me-1163_1_north-korea[Google Scholar]

27. Rosenbaum, D. E. 1991. “U.S. To Pull A-Bombs from South Korea.” New York TimesOctober 20, p. 3http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/20/world/us-to-pull-a-bombs-from-south-korea.html [Google Scholar]

28. Ser Myo-Ja 2011. “U.S. Arms Control Chief Backs Nuke Redeployment.” Korea Joongang Daily,March 1http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2932857[Google Scholar]

29. “U.S. Begins Withdrawal of Nuclear Weapons: Report.” AFP (Seoul), November 281991[Google Scholar]

30. “U.S. Starts Removing Nuclear Weapons from S. Korea – Reports Seoul.” Reuters (Seoul),November 281991[Google Scholar]

31. “UNC in Korea Gets Matador Missiles.” Pacific Stars and StripesDecember 181958, pp. 12. For a copy of this article, see http://www.tacmissileers.org/korea-gets-matador-missiles/[Google Scholar]

32. US Air Force. 2016. “ROK/US Alliance Aircraft Conduct Extended Deterrence Mission.” January10http://www.osan.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123466574[Google Scholar]

33. US Pacific Command. 1975. “Command History 1974, Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1. Partially Declassified and Obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes.” Excerpts,http://www.nukestrat.com/korea/CINCPAC74a.pdf[Google Scholar]

34. US Pacific Command. 1977. “Command History 1976, Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1. Partially Declassified and Obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes.” Excerpts,http://www.nukestrat.com/korea/CINCPAC76.pdf[Google Scholar]

35. US Pacific Command. 1992. “Command History 1991.” Camp Smith, Hawaii, Volume 1, p. 91. Partially declassified and obtained under FOIA by Peter Hayes. Excerpts,http://www.nukestrat.com/korea/CINCPAC91p90-93.pdf[Google Scholar]

36. US Strategic Command. 2016. “Public Affairs, “USS Pennsylvania Arrives in Guam for Port Visit.”October 13.https://www.stratcom.mil/news/2016/651/USS_Pennsylvania_Arrives_in_Guam_for_Port_Visit/[Google Scholar]

37. VeArd, T. “History of the USS Robert E. Lee, N.D.” Accessed July 192000.http://www.ssbn601.com/history.htm[Google Scholar]

38. Wise, M. Z. 1992. “North Korea Signs Agreement for Inspections of Nuclear Sites.” Washington PostJanuary 31, p. A15[Google Scholar]

 

In a recent article titled ‘Challenges for Resolving Complex Conflicts’, I pointed out four conflict configurations that are paid little attention by conflict theorists.

In this article, I would like to discuss a fifth conflict configuration that is effectively ignored by conflict theorists (and virtually everyone else). This conflict is undoubtedly the most fundamental conflict in human society, because it generates all of the violence humans perpetrate and experience, and yet it is utterly invisible to almost everyone.

I have previously described this conflict as ‘the adult war on children’. It is indeed humanity’s ‘dirty little secret’.

Let me illustrate and explain the nature and extent of this secret war. And what we can do about it.

Every day, according to some estimates, human adults kill 50,000 of our children. The true figure is probably significantly higher. We kill children in wars. See, for example, ‘Scourging Yemen’. We kill them with drones. We kill them in our homes and on the street. We shoot them at school.

We also kill children in vast numbers by starving them to death, depriving them of clean drinking water, denying them medicines – see, for example, ‘Malaria is alive and well and killing more than 3000 African children every day’ – or forcing them to live in a polluted environment, particularly in parts of Africa, Asia and Central/South America. Why? Because we use military violence to maintain an ‘economic’ system that allocates resources for military weapons, as well as corporate profits for the wealthy, instead of resources for living.

We also execute children in sacrificial killings after kidnapping them. We even breed children to sell as a ‘cash crop’ for sexual violation, child pornography (‘kiddie porn’) and the filming of ‘snuff’ movies (in which children are killed during the filming), torture and satanic sacrifice. And these are just some of the manifestations of the violence against children that have been happening for centuries or, in some cases, millennia. On these points, see the video evidence presented at the recent Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sex Abuse organized by the International Tribunal for Natural Justice.

The compelling testimony at the Commission of Inquiry of survivor/perpetrator Ronald Bernard will give you a clear sense of the deep elite engagement (that is, the 8,000-8,500 ‘elite’ individuals running central banks, governments, secret service agencies, multinational corporations, terrorist organizations and churches) in the extraordinary violence inflicted on children, with children illegally trafficked internationally along with women, weapons, drugs, currencies, gold and wildlife.

In a particularly poignant series of moments during the interview, after he has revealed some of the staggering violence he suffered as a child at the hands of his father and the Church, Bernard specifically refers to the fact that the people engaged in these practices are terrified (and ‘serving the monster of greed’) and that, during his time as a financial entrepreneur, he was working with people who understood him as he understood them: individuals who were suffering enormously from the violence they had suffered as children themselves and who are now so full of hatred that they want to destroy life, human and otherwise. In short: they enjoy and celebrate killing people and destroying the Earth as a direct response to the violence they each suffered as a child.

There are more video testimonies by survivors, expert witnesses, research scholars in the field and others on the International Tribunal for Natural Justice website and if you want to read scholarly books documenting aspects of this staggering violence against children then see, for example, ‘Childhunters: Requiem of a Child-killer’ and ‘Epidemic: America’s Trade in Child Rape’.

For further accounts of the systematic exploitation, rape, torture and murder of children over a lengthy period, which focuses on Canada’s indigenous peoples, Rev. Kevin Annetts evocative report ‘Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust – The Untold Story of the Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples by Church and State in Canada’, and his books ‘Unrelenting’ and ‘Murder by Decree: The Crime of Genocide in Canada’ use eyewitness testimonies and archival documentation to provide ‘an uncensored record of the planned extermination of indigenous children in Canada’s murderous “Indian residential schools”’ from 1889 to 1996.

Apart from what happened in the Indian Residential Schools during this period, however, the books also offer extensive evidence documenting the ongoing perpetration of genocide, including child rape, torture and killing, against Canada’s indigenous peoples by its government, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Catholic, Anglican and United Churches since the 19th century. Sadly, there is plenty more in Kevin’s various books and on the website of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State which also explain the long-standing involvement of the Vatican in these genocidal crimes against children.

Of course, Canada is not alone in its unrelenting violence against indigenous children (and indigenous peoples generally). The United States and Australia, among many others, also have long records of savagery in destroying the lives of indigenous children, fundamentally by taking their land and destroying their culture, traditional livelihoods and spirituality. And when indigenous people do not simply abandon their traditional way of being and adopt the dominant model, they are blamed and persecuted even more savagely, as the record clearly demonstrates.

Moreover, institutional violence against children is not limited to the contexts and settings mentioned above. In the recently conducted Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse undertaken in Australia, childcare services, schools, health and allied services, youth detention, residential care and contemporary out-of-home services, religious activities, family and youth support services, supported accommodation, sporting, recreational and club activities, youth employment, and the military forces were all identified as providing contexts for perpetrating violence against children.

Over half of the survivors suffered sexual violation in an institution managed by a religious organization such as places of worship and for religious instruction, missions, religious schools, orphanages, residential homes, recreational clubs, youth groups, and welfare services. Another one-third of survivors suffered the violence in an institution under government management such as a school, an out-of-home care service, a youth detention centre or at a health service centre. The remaining 10%  suffered violence in a private organization such as a child care centre, a medical practice or clinic, a music or dance school, an independent school, a yoga ashram or a sports club, a non-government or not-for-profit organization.

Needless to say, the failure to respond to any of this violence for the past century by any of the institutions ‘responsible’ for monitoring, oversight and criminal justice, such as the police, law enforcement and agencies responsible for public prosecution, clearly demonstrates that mechanisms theoretically designed to protect children (and adults) do not function when those same institutions are complicit in the violence and are, in any case, designed to defend elite interests (not ‘ordinary’ people and children). Hence, of course, this issue was not even investigated by the Commission because it was excluded from the terms of reference!

Separately from those children we kill or violate every day in the ways briefly described above, we traffic many others into sexual slavery – such as those trafficked (sometimes by their parents) into prostitution to service the sex tourism industry in countries such as Thailand, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines and India – we kidnap others to terrorize them into becoming child soldiers with 46 countries using them according to Child Soldiers International, we force others to work as slave laborers, in horrific conditions, in fields, factories and mines (and buy the cheap products of their exploited labor as our latest ‘bargain’) with Human Rights Watch reporting over 70,000,000 children, including many who aren’t even, technically-speaking, slaves, working in ‘hazardous conditions’ – see ‘Child Labor’ – and we condemn millions to live in poverty, homelessness and misery because national governments, despite rhetoric to the contrary, place either negligible or no value on children apart from, in some cases, as future wage slaves in the workforce.

We also condemn millions of children, such as those in Palestine, Tibet, Western Sahara and West Papua, to live under military occupation, where many are routinely imprisoned, shot or killed.

In addition, while fighting wars we cause many children to be born with grotesque genetic deformities because we use horrific weapons, like those with depleted uranium, on their parents. See ‘“Falluja Babies” and Depleted Uranium: America’s Toxic Legacy in Iraq’ and ‘Depleted uranium used by US forces blamed for birth defects and cancer in Iraq’.

In other cases, we cause children shockingly debilitating injuries, if they are not killed outright, by using conventional, biological and chemical weapons on them directly. See ‘Summary of historical attacks using chemical or biological weapons’.

But war also destroys housing and other infrastructure forcing millions of children to become internally displaced or refugees in another country (often without a living parent), causing ongoing trauma. Worldwide, one child out of every 200 is a refugee, whether through war or poverty, environmental or climate disruption. See ‘50mn children displaced by war & poverty worldwide’.

We also inflict violence on children in many other forms, ranging from ‘ordinary’ domestic violence to genital mutilation, with UNICEF calculating that 200 million girls and young women in 30 countries on three continents have been mutilated. See ‘Female genital mutilation/cutting’.

And we deny children a free choice (even those who supposedly live in a ‘democracy’) and imprison vast numbers of them in school in the delusional belief that this is good for them. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’ Whatever other damage that school does, it certainly helps to create the next generation of child-destroyers. And, in many countries, we just imprison children in our jails. After all, the legal system is no more than an elite tool to control ‘ordinary’ people while shielding the elite from accountability for their grotesque violence against us all. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

While almost trivial by comparison with the violence identified above, the perversity of many multinational corporations in destroying our children’s health is graphically illustrated in the film ‘Global Junk Food’. In Europe, food manufacturers have signed up to ‘responsibility pledges’, promising not to add sugar, preservatives, artificial colours or flavours to their products and to not target children.

However, the developing world is not in Europe so these ‘responsibility pledges’ obviously do not apply and corporations such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino’s Pizza sell their junk food in developing countries (with the video above showcasing Brazil and India) loaded with excess oil, salt and sugar and even using fake cheese.

The well-documented report reveals corporations like these to be nothing more than drug dealers, selling toxic food to ill-informed victims that deliver a lifetime of diabetes and obesity to huge numbers of children. So, just as weapons corporations derive their profits from killing children (and adults), junk food corporations derive their profits from destroying the health of children (and adults). Of course, the medical industry, rather than campaigning vigorously against this outrage, prefers to profit from it too by offering ‘treatments’, including the surgical removal of fat, which offer nothing more than temporary but very profitable ‘relief’.

But this is far from representing the only active involvement of the medical industry in the extraordinary violence we inflict on children. For example, western children and many others are rarely spared a plethora of vaccinations which systematically destroy a child’s immune system, thus making their health ongoingly vulnerable to later assaults on their well-being. For a taste of the vast literature on this subject, see ‘Clinical features in patients with long-lasting macrophagic myofasciitis’, ‘Vaccines: Who’s Allergic To Thimerosal (Mercury), Raise Your Hand’ and ‘Vaccine Free Health’.

And before we leave the subject of food too far behind, it should be noted that just because the junk food sold in Europe and some other western countries has less fat, salt, sugar, preservatives and artificial colors and flavours in it, this does not mean that it is healthy. It still has various combinations of added fat, salt, sugar, preservatives and artificial colors and flavours in it.

Separately from this: don’t forget that virtually all parents are systematically poisoning their children by feeding them food grown by the corporate agribusiness giants which is heavily depleted of nutrients and laced with poisons such as glyphosate. For a taste of the vast literature, see ‘The hidden truth about glyphosate EXPOSED, according to undeniable scientific evidence’. Of course, in many countries we are also forcing our children to drink fluoridated water to the detriment of their health too. See ‘Research Exposes How our Water is Making us Depressed, Sick: Fluoridated water is much to blame’.

Obviously, organically/biodynamically grown food, healthily prepared, and unfluoridated water are not health priorities for their children, according to most parents.

As our ultimate act of violence against all children, we are destroying their future. See ‘Killing the Biosphere to Fast-track Human Extinction’.

So how do we do all of this?

Very easily, actually. It works like this.

Perpetrators of violence learn their craft in childhood. If you inflict violence on a child, they learn to inflict violence on others. The child rapist and ritual child killer suffered violence as a child. The terrorist suffered violence as a child. The political leader who wages war suffered violence as a child. The man who inflicts violence on women suffered violence as a child. The corporate executive who exploits working class people and/or those who live in Africa, Asia or Central/South America suffered violence as a child. The racist and religious bigot suffered violence as a child. The soldier who kills in war suffered violence as a child. The individual who perpetrates violence in the home, in the schoolyard or on the street suffered violence as a child. The parent who inflicts violence on their own children suffered violence as a child.

So if we want to end violence, exploitation, ecological destruction and war, then we must finally admit our ‘dirty little secret’ and end our longest and greatest war: the adult war on children. And here is an incentive: if we do not tackle the fundamental cause of violence, then our combined and unrelenting efforts to tackle all of its other symptoms must ultimately fail. And extinction at our own hand is inevitable.

How can I claim that violence against children is the fundamental cause of all other violence? Consider this. There is universal acceptance that behavior is shaped by childhood experience. If it was not, we would not put such effort into education and other efforts to ‘socialize’ children to fit into society. And this is why many psychologists have argued that exposure to war toys and violent video games shapes attitudes and behaviors in relation to violence.

But it is far more complex than these trivialities suggest and, strange though it may seem, it is not just the ‘visible’ violence (such as hitting, screaming at and sexually abusing) that we normally label ‘violence’ that causes the main damage, although this is extremely damaging. The largest component of damage arises from the ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence that we adults unconsciously inflict on children during the ordinary course of the day. Tragically, the bulk of this violence occurs in the family home and at school. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

So what is ‘invisible’ violence? It is the ‘little things’ we do every day, partly because we are just ‘too busy’. For example, when we do not allow time to listen to, and value, a child’s thoughts and feelings, the child learns to not listen to themSelf thus destroying their internal communication system. When we do not let a child say what they want (or ignore them when they do), the child develops communication and behavioral dysfunctionalities as they keep trying to meet their own needs (which, as a basic survival strategy, they are genetically programmed to do).

When we blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie to, bribe, blackmail, moralize with and/or judge a child, we both undermine their sense of Self-worth and teach them to blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie, bribe, blackmail, moralize and/or judge.

The fundamental outcome of being bombarded throughout their childhood by this ‘invisible’ violence is that the child is utterly overwhelmed by feelings of fear, pain, anger and sadness (among many others). However, mothers, fathers, teachers, religious figures and other adults also actively interfere with the expression of these feelings and the behavioral responses that are naturally generated by them and it is this ‘utterly invisible’ violence that explains why the dysfunctional behavioral outcomes actually occur.

For example, by ignoring a child when they express their feelings, by comforting, reassuring or distracting a child when they express their feelings, by laughing at or ridiculing their feelings, by terrorizing a child into not expressing their feelings (e.g. by screaming at them when they cry or get angry), and/or by violently controlling a behavior that is generated by their feelings (e.g. by hitting them, restraining them or locking them into a room), the child has no choice but to unconsciously suppress their awareness of these feelings.

However, once a child has been terrorized into suppressing their awareness of their feelings (rather than being allowed to have their feelings and to act on them) the child has also unconsciously suppressed their awareness of the reality that caused these feelings. This has many outcomes that are disastrous for the individual, for society and for nature because the individual will now easily suppress their awareness of the feelings that would tell them how to act most functionally in any given circumstance and they will progressively acquire a phenomenal variety of dysfunctional behaviors, including some that are violent towards themself, others and/or the Earth.

From the above, it should also now be apparent that punishment should never be used. ‘Punishment’, of course, is one of the words we use to obscure our awareness of the fact that we are using violence. Violence, even when we label it ‘punishment’, scares children and adults alike and cannot elicit a functional behavioural response. See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.

If someone behaves dysfunctionally, they need to be listened to, deeply, so that they can start to become consciously aware of the feelings (which will always include fear and, often, terror) that drove the dysfunctional behavior in the first place. They then need to feel and express these feelings (including any anger) in a safe way. Only then will behavioral change in the direction of functionality be possible. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

‘But these adult behaviors you have described don’t seem that bad. Can the outcome be as disastrous as you claim?’ you might ask. The problem is that there are hundreds of these ‘ordinary’, everyday behaviors that destroy the Selfhood of the child. It is ‘death by a thousand cuts’ and most children simply do not survive as Self-aware individuals. And why do we do this? We do it so that each child will fit into our model of ‘the perfect citizen’: that is, obedient and hardworking student, reliable and pliant employee/soldier, and submissive law-abiding citizen. In other words: a slave.

Of course, once we destroy the Selfhood of a child, it has many flow-on effects. For example, once you terrorize a child into accepting certain information about themself, other people or the state of the world, the child becomes unconsciously fearful of dealing with new information, especially if this information is contradictory to what they have been terrorized into believing. As a result, the child will unconsciously dismiss new information out of hand.

In short, the child has been terrorized in such a way that they are no longer capable of thinking critically or even learning (or their learning capacity is seriously diminished by excluding any information that is not a simple extension of what they already ‘know’). If you imagine any of the bigots you know, you are imagining someone who is utterly terrified. But it’s not just the bigots; virtually all people are affected in this manner making them incapable of responding adequately to new (or even important) information. This is one explanation why many people are ‘climate deniers’ and most others do nothing in response to the climate catastrophe.

Of course, each person’s experience of violence during childhood is unique and this is why each perpetrator becomes violent in their own particular combination of ways.

But if you want to understand the core psychology of all perpetrators of violence, it is important to understand that, as a result of the extraordinary violence they each suffered during childhood, they are now (unconsciously) utterly terrified, full of self-hatred and personally powerless, among another 20 psychological characteristics. You can read a brief outline of these characteristics and how they are acquired on pages 12-16 of ‘Why Violence?’

As should now be clear, the central point in understanding violence is that it is psychological in origin and hence any effective response must enable both the perpetrator’s and the victim’s suppressed feelings (which will include enormous fear about, and rage at, the violence they have suffered) to be safely expressed. As mentioned above, for an explanation of what is required, see ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

Unfortunately, this nisteling cannot be provided by a psychiatrist or psychologist whose training is based on a delusionary understanding of how the human mind functions. See ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’ and ‘Psychiatry: Science or Fraud? The professor’s trick that exposed the ongoing Psychiatry racket…’ Nisteling will enable those who have suffered from psychological trauma to heal fully and completely, but it will take time.

So if we want to end violence (including the starvation, trafficking, rape, torture and killing of children), exploitation, ecological destruction and war, then we must tackle the fundamental cause. Primarily, this means giving everyone, child and adult alike, all of the space they need to feel, deeply, what they want to do, and to then let them do it (or to have the feelings they naturally have if they are prevented from doing so). See ‘Putting Feelings First’. In the short term, this will have some dysfunctional outcomes. But it will lead to an infinitely better overall outcome than the system of emotional suppression, control and punishment which has generated the incredibly violent world in which we now find ourselves.

This all sounds pretty unpalatable doesn’t it? So each of us has a choice. We can suppress our awareness of what is unpalatable, as we have been terrorized into doing as a child, or we can feel the various feelings that we have in response to this information and then ponder (personal and collective) ways forward.

If feelings are felt and expressed then our responses can be shaped by the conscious and integrated functioning of thoughts and feelings, as evolution intended, and we can plan intelligently. The alternative is to have our unconscious fear controlling our thinking and deluding us that we are acting rationally.

It is time to end the most fundamental conflict that is destroying human society from within – the adult war on children – so that we can more effectively tackle all of the other violence that emerges from this cause too.

So what do we do?

Let me briefly reiterate.

If you are willing, you can make the commitment outlined in ‘My Promise to Children’. If you need to do some healing of your own to be able to nurture children in this way, then consider the information provided in the article ‘Putting Feelings First’.

In addition, you are also welcome to consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which maps out a fifteen-year strategy for creating a peaceful, just and sustainable world community so that all children (and everyone else) has an ecologically viable planet on which to live.

You might also consider supporting or even working with organizations like Destiny Rescue, which works to rescue children trafficked into prostitution, or any of the many advocacy organizations associated with the network of End Child Prostitution and Trafficking.

But for the plethora of other manifestations of violence against children identified above, you might consider using Gandhian nonviolent strategy in any context of particular concern to you. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy. And, if you like, you can join the worldwide movement to end all violence by signing online ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

In summary: Each one of us has an important choice. We can acknowledge the painful truth that we inflict enormous violence on our children (which then manifests in a myriad complex ways) and respond powerfully to that truth. Or we can keep deluding ourselves and continue to observe, powerlessly, as the violence in our world proliferates until human beings are extinct.

If you want a child who is nonviolent, truthful, compassionate, considerate, patient, thoughtful, respectful, generous, loving of themself and others, trustworthy, honest, dignified, determined, courageous, powerful and who lives out their own unique destiny, then the child must be treated with – and experience – nonviolence, truth, compassion, consideration, patience, thoughtfulness, respect, generosity, love, trust, honesty, dignity, determination, courage, power and, ideally, live in a world that prioritizes nurturing the unique destiny of each child.

Alternatively, if you want a child to turn out like the perpetrators of violence described above, to be powerless to respond effectively to the crises in our world, or to even just turn out to be an appalling parent, then inflict violence – visible, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ – on them during their childhood.

Tragically, with only the rarest of exceptions, human adults are too terrified to truly love, nurture and defend our children from the avalanche of violence that is unleashed on them at the moment of birth.

*

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

This article was originally published on March 15, 2016.

Razor-wire fences, detention centres, xenophobic rhetoric and political disarray; nothing illustrates the tendency of governments to aggressively pursue nationalistic interests more starkly than their inhumane response to refugees fleeing conflict and war. With record numbers of asylum seekers predicted to reach Europe this year and a morally acceptable humanitarian response nowhere in sight, the immediate problem is more apparent than ever: the abject failure of the international community to share the responsibility, burden and resources needed to safeguard the basic rights of asylum seekers in accordance with international law.  

Of immediate concern across the European Union, however, is the mounting pressure that policymakers are under from the far-right and anti-immigration groups, whose influence is skewing the public debate on the divisive issue of how governments should deal with refugees and immigrants. With racial intolerance steadily growing among citizens, the traditionally liberal attitude of European states is fast diminishing and governments are increasingly adopting a cynical interpretation of international refugee law that lacks any sense of justice or compassion.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, which was implemented in response to Europe’s last major refugee crisis during World War II, states that governments need only safeguard the human rights of asylum seekers when they are inside their territory. In violation of the spirit of this landmark human rights legislation, the response from most European governments has been to prevent rather than facilitate the arrival of refugees in order to minimise their legal responsibility towards them. In order to achieve their aim, the EU has even gone so far as making a flawed and legally questionable deal with President Erdogan to intercept migrant families crossing the Aegean Sea and return them to Turkey against their will.

Instead of providing ‘safe and legal routes’ to refugees, a growing number of countries on the migration path from Greece to Western Europe are adopting the Donald Trump solution of building walls, militarising boarders and constructing barbed wire barriers to stop people entering their country. Undocumented refugees (a majority of them women and children) who are trying to pass through Europe’s no-longer borderless Schengen area are at times subjected to humiliation and violence or are detained in rudimentary camps with minimal access to the essentials they need to survive. Unable to travel to their desired destination, tens of thousands of refugees have been bottlenecked in Greece which has become a warehouse for abandoned souls in a country on the brink of its own humanitarian crisis.

Ostensibly, the extreme reaction of many EU member states to those risking their lives to escape armed conflict is tantamount to officially sanctioned racial discrimination. Unsurprisingly, this unwarranted government response has been welcomed by nationalist parties who are now polling favourably among voters in the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Poland. The same is true in Hungary, where the government has even agreed Nazi-era demands to confiscate cash and jewellery from refugees to fund their anti-humanitarian efforts.

There can be little doubt that the European response to refugees has been discriminatory, morally objectionable and politically dangerous. It’s also self-defeating since curtailing civil liberties and discarding long-held social values has the potential to destabilise Europe far more than simply providing the assistance guaranteed to refugees under the UN convention. Albeit unwittingly, the reactionary attitude of governments also plays directly into the hands of Islamic State and other jihadi groups whose broader intentions include inciting Islamophobia, provoking instability and conflict within western countries, and recruiting support for terrorism in the Middle East and across Europe.

Dispelling nationalist myths of the far-right

With the public increasingly divided about how governments should respond to the influx of people escaping violent conflict, it’s crucial that the pervasive myths peddled by right-wing extremists are exposed for what they are: bigotry, hyperbole and outright lies designed to exacerbate fear and discord within society.

Forced migration is a global phenomenon and, compared with other continents, Europe is not being subjected to the ‘invasion of refugees’ widely portrayed in the mainstream media. Of the world’s 60 million refugees, nine out of ten are not seeking asylum in the EU, and the vast majority remain displaced within their own countries. Most of those that do settle in Europe will return to their country of origin when they are no longer at risk (as happened at the end of the Balkan Wars of the 1990s when 70% of refugees who had fled to Germany returned to Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Albania and Slovenia).

The real emergency is taking place outside of Europe, where there is a desperate need for more assistance from the international community. For example, Turkey is now home to over 3 million refugees; Jordan hosts 2.7 million refugees – a staggering 41 percent of its population; and Lebanon has 1.5 million Syrian refugees who make up a third of its population. Unsurprisingly, social and economic systems are under severe strain in these and the other countries that host the majority of global refugees – especially since they are mainly based in developing countries with soaring unemployment rates, inadequate welfare systems and high levels of social unrest. In stark comparison (and with the notable exception of Germany), the 28 relatively prosperous EU member states have collectively pledged to resettle a mere 160,000 of the one million refugees that entered Europe in 2015. Not only does this amount to less than 0.25% of their combined population, governments have only relocated a few hundred have so far.

The spurious claim that there are insufficient resources available to share with those seeking asylum in the EU or that asylum seekers will ‘take our homes, our jobs and our welfare services’ is little more than a justification for racial discrimination. Aside from the overriding moral and legal obligation for states to provide emergency assistance to anyone fleeing war or persecution, the economic rationale for resettling asylum seekers throughout Europe (and globally) is sound: in countries experiencing declining birth rates and ageing populations – as is the case across the EU as a whole – migration levels need to be significantly increased in order to continue financing systems of state welfare.

The facts are incontrovertible: evidence from OECD countries demonstrates that immigrant households contribute $2,800 more to the economy in taxes alone than they receive in public provision. In the UK, non-European immigrants contributed £5 billion ($7.15 billion) in taxes between 2000 and 2011. They are also less likely to receive state benefits than the rest of the population, more likely to start businesses, and less likely to commit serious crimes than natives. Overall, economists at the European Commission calculate that the influx of people from conflict zones will have a positive effect on employment rates and long-term public finances in the most affected countries.

A common agenda to end austerity

If migrant families contribute significantly to society and many European countries with low birth rates actually need them in greater numbers, why are governments and a growing sector of the population so reluctant to honour international commitments and assist refugees in need? The widely held belief that public resources are too scarce to share with asylum seekers is most likely born of fear and insecurity in an age of economic austerity, when many European citizens are struggling to make ends meet.

Just as the number of people forcibly displaced from developing countries begins to surge, economic conditions in most European countries have made it politically unfeasible to provide incoming refugees with shelter and basic welfare. Voluntary and compulsory austerity measures adopted by governments after spending trillions of dollars bailing out the banks in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis have resulted in deep spending cuts to essential public services such as healthcare, education and pensions schemes. The resulting economic crisis has led to rising unemployment, social discontent, growing levels of inequality and public services that are being stretched to breaking point.

The same neoliberal ideology that underpins austerity in Europe is also responsible for creating widespread economic insecurity across the Global South and facilitating an exodus of so-called ‘economic migrants’, many of who are also making their way to Europe. Economic austerity has been central to the ‘development’ policies foisted onto low-income countries for decades by the IMF and World Bank in exchange for loans and international aid. They constitute a modern form of economic colonialism that in many cases has decimated essential public services, thwarted poverty reduction programmes and increased the likelihood of social unrest, sectarian violence and civil war. By prioritising international loan repayments over the basic welfare of citizens, these neoliberal policies are directly responsible for creating a steady flow of ‘refugees from globalisation’ who are in search of basic economic security in an increasingly unequal world.

Instead of pointing the finger of blame at governments for mismanaging the economy, public anger across Europe is being wrongly directed at a far easier target: refugees from foreign lands who have become society’s collective scapegoats at a time of grinding austerity. It’s high time that people in both ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ countries recognise that their hardship stems from a parallel set of neoliberal policies that have prioritised market forces above social needs. By emphasising this mutual cause and promoting solidarity between people and nations, citizens can begin overturning prejudiced attitudes and supporting progressive agendas geared towards safeguarding the common good of all humanity.

From a culture of war to conflict resolution

It’s also clear that any significant change in the substance and direction of economic policy must go hand-in-hand with a dramatic shift away from aggressive foreign policy agendas that are overtly based on securing national interests at all costs – such as appropriating the planet’s increasingly scarce natural resources. Indeed, it will remain impossible to address the root causes of the refugee crisis until the UK, US, France and other NATO countries fully accept that their misguided foreign policies are largely responsible for the current predicament.

Not only are many western powers responsible for selling arms to abusive regimes in the Middle East, their wider foreign policy objectives and military ambitions have displaced large swathes of the world’s population, particularly as a consequence of the illegal occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the ill-conceived invasion of Libya. The connection between the military interventions of recent years, the perpetuation of terrorism and the plight of refugees across the Middle East and North Africa has been succinctly explained by Professor Noam Chomsky:

“the US-UK invasion of Iraq … dealt a nearly lethal blow to a country that had already been devastated by a massive military attack twenty years earlier followed by virtually genocidal US-UK sanctions. The invasion displaced millions of people, many of whom fled and were absorbed in the neighboring countries, poor countries that are left to deal somehow with the detritus of our crimes. One outgrowth of the invasion is the ISIS/Daesh monstrosity, which is contributing to the horrifying Syrian catastrophe. Again, the neighboring countries have been absorbing the flow of refugees. The second sledgehammer blow destroyed Libya, now a chaos of warring groups, an ISIS base, a rich source of jihadis and weapons from West Africa to the Middle East, and a funnel for flow of refugees from Africa.”

After this series of blundered invasions by the US and NATO forces, which continue to destabilise an entire region, one might think that militarily powerful nations would finally accept the need for a very different foreign policy framework. No longer can governments ignore the imperative to engender trust between nations and replace the prevailing culture of war with one of peace and nonviolent means of conflict resolution. In the immediate future, the priority for states must be to deescalate emerging cold war tensions and diffuse what is essentially a proxy war in the Middle East being played out in Syria. Yet this remains a huge challenge at a time when military intervention is still favoured over compromise and diplomacy, even when common sense and experience tells us that this outdated approach only exacerbates violent conflict and causes further geopolitical instability.

Sharing the burden, responsibility and resources

Given the deplorably inadequate response from most EU governments to the global exodus of refugees thus far, the stage is set for a rapid escalation of the crisis in 2016 and beyond. Some ten million refugees are expected to make their way to Europe in 2016 alone, and this figure is likely to rise substantially with population growth in developing countries over the coming decades. But it’s climate change that will bring the real emergency, with far higher migration levels accompanied by floods, droughts and sudden hikes in global food prices.

Although largely overlooked by politicians and the mainstream media, the number of people fleeing conflict is already dwarfed by ‘environmental refugees’ displaced by severe ecological conditions – whose numbers could rise to 200 million by 2050. It’s clear that unless nations collectively pursue a radically different approach to managing forced displacement, international discord and social tensions will continue to mount and millions of additional refugees will be condemned to oversized and inhumane camps on the outer edges of civilisation.

The fundamentals of an effective and morally acceptable response to the crisis are already articulated in the Refugee Convention, which sets out the core responsibilities that states have towards those seeking asylum – even though governments have interpreted the treaty erroneously and failed to implement it effectively. In the short term, it’s evident that governments must mobilise the resources needed to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to those escaping war, regardless of where in the world they have been displaced. Like the Marshall Plan that was initiated after the Second World War, a globally coordinated emergency response to the refugee crisis will require a significant redistribution of finance from the world’s richest countries to those most in need – which should be provided on the basis of ‘enlightened self-interest’ if not from a genuine sense of compassion and altruism.

Immediate humanitarian interventions would have to be accompanied by a new and more effective system for administrating the protection of refugees in a way that is commensurate with international refugee law. In simple terms, such a mechanism could be coordinated by a reformed and revitalised UN Refugee Agency (the UNHCR) which would ensure that both the responsibility and resources needed to protect refugees is shared fairly among nations. A mechanism for sharing global responsibility would also mean that states only provide assistance in accordance with their individual capacity and circumstances, which would prevent less developed nations from shouldering the greatest burden of refugees as is currently the case.

Even though the UN’s refugee convention has already been agreed by 145 nations, policymakers in the EU seem incapable and unwilling to demonstrate any real leadership in tackling this or indeed any other pressing transnational issue. Not only does the resulting refugee fiasco demonstrate the extent to which self-interest dominates the political status quo across the European Union, it confirms the suspicion that the union as a whole is increasingly devoid of social conscience and in urgent need of reform.

Thankfully, ordinary citizens are leading the way on this critical issue and putting elected representatives to shame by providing urgent support to refugee families in immediate need of help. In their thousands, volunteers stationed along Europe’s boarders have been welcoming asylum seekers by providing much needed food, shelter and clothing, and have even provided search and rescue services for those who have risked their lives being trafficked into Europe in rubber dinghies. Nowhere is this spirit of compassion and generosity more apparent than on Lesbos and other Geek islands, where residents have been collectively nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize for their humanitarian efforts.

The selfless actions of these dedicated volunteers should remind the world that people have a responsibility and a natural inclination to serve one another in times of need – regardless of differences in race, religion and nationality. Instead of building militarised borders and ignoring popular calls for a just and humanitarian response to the refugee crisis, governments should take the lead from these people of goodwill and prioritise the needs of the world’s most vulnerable above all other concerns. For European leaders and policymakers in all countries, it’s this instinctively humane response to the refugee crisis – which is based firmly on the principle of sharing – that holds the key to addressing the whole spectrum of interconnected social, economic and environmental challenges in the critical period ahead.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Global Refugee Crisis: Humanity’s Last Call for a Culture of Sharing and Cooperation

August 8th 2018 will mark forty years since the MOVE 9 have been unjustly imprisoned for a crime the entire world knows they did not commit. From the day they were arrested on August 8th 1978, during their trial, the day after they were each sentenced to 30-100 years, during the ten years of the parole process, and the 40 years of being unjustly imprisoned move has always maintained their innocence and their innocence has always shown during this whole forty year period. The reason that they have remained in prison all these years is the same reason why they went to prison in the first place because they are committed MOVE members.

On March 13th 1998 Merle Africa died in Pennsylvania prisons under mysterious circumstances after being unjustly jailed for twenty years. On January 10th 2015 Phil Africa died under mysterious circumstances in Pennsylvania prisons after spending 30 plus years unjustly jailed. Rather than grant parole or release move this system and its officials will rather see MOVE die in prison. While Pennsylvania makes strides in repairing the issue of mass incarceration one of the biggest taints in Pennsylvania’s history of mass incarceration and injustice has not been repaired and that is the issue of the MOVE 9 as it relates to their release from imprisonment.

The parole board has pushed the issue of remorse being shown but the question that we want to ask is has the parole board shown any remorse to the children and grandchildren of the MOVE 9? The fact that several of the MOVE 9 have grandchildren some even great grandchildren that they have only been with on a prison visit is heart wrenching. Where is the remorse from the parole board over the fact that children were torn from their parents arms forty years ago and forced to have a relationship with their parents only through phone calls, letters, and occasional visits which may have lasted only three hours.

On August 5th 2018 we are asking people to join us for an afternoon of resistance for the MOVE 9. First at 10:00am join us for running down the walls a 5k run organized for the MOVE 9 by our brothers and sisters from the Philadelphia anarchist black cross that will take place at Fairmount Park. To register for the run, click here.

Then at 3:00pm join us at the mastery shoemaker high school located 5301 Media Street for an afternoon panel on MOVE that will feature Ramona Africa, Pam Africa, Professor Walter Palmer, Karen Falcon and others.

Then later that evening at the same venue we will be holding our framed in America concert as acts are still being confirmed so far we have the Raw Life Crew, Dell P, Seraiah Nicole and Eli Capella, Jasiri X and A Surprise Headliner. We look forward to seeing everyone on August 5th. Also at this time we are still encouraging people to sign our petition aimed at the United States Justice Department, click here.

*

Featured image is from The Good Men Project.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Move 9” Activists: 40-Year Commemoration. Unjustly Imprisoned in Pennsylvania Prisons

Techniques Used to Disrupt 9/11 Questioning

June 25th, 2018 by Kevin Ryan

In 2008, Harvard professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule proposed that the government should engage in “cognitive infiltration” of citizen groups that seek the truth about 9/11. The proposal was that government operatives, whether anonymous or otherwise, should infiltrate and disrupt the groups. They wrote,

“Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action. “

The following year, this anti-Constitutional stance was rewarded when Sunstein was made director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement responded with detailed criticism.

Of course, the idea of infiltrating a grassroots action group, to disrupt and defame its members, was not new. The FBI program called COINTELPRO was a widely reported example after it was revealed in the early 1970s to have infiltrated citizen groups seeking civil rights and peace. After being revealed, COINTELPRO techniques continued at the FBI and elsewhere in government.

Since 9/11, journalists have noted that government infiltration of political groups is no longer a rare exception but is the norm. The goals of such infiltration are to destabilize and prevent citizen dissent by creating a negative public image for the target group and conflict within the group. Infiltration is easy when it comes to a grassroots movement like 9/11 Truth. That is, you cannot just claim to be a 9/11 Commission member or an employee of a government agency but anyone can say they are a truth seeker. The beauty of this for government operatives is that they can control both sides of the conversation.

To make a significant impact, however, an infiltrator needs to quickly move into a position as a leading voice for the movement. One way in which this was done, even before Sunstein’s proposal, was through a social variant of the physical principle called the “gravitational assist.” The physical principle leverages the movement and gravitational pull of a moon or planet to slingshot a spacecraft into a higher velocity trajectory by moving the path of the spacecraft near the larger body. The social variant is when a brief association with a leading voice in a group lends someone credibility that they would otherwise not have.

Examples of the gravitational assist occurred when physicist Steven Jones made news in September 2005 for challenging the official account of the World Trade Center destruction. People wanted their photo taken with him and he was invited to speak at many events. Soon afterward, Jim Fetzer, previously unknown to 9/11 investigators, dramatically announced that he and Jones were starting a new “scholars” group to challenge the official account of 9/11. That association led to Fetzer discrediting Jones and others through association with absurd concepts like Star Wars beams and holograms at the WTC.

It was later learned that Fetzer was an expert on the use of disinformation yet he and his colleagues Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods went on to link 9/11 questioning with many preposterous ideas. They created nonsensical hypotheses and promoted them through mass emails targeting media representatives and others in order to present the 9/11 Truth Movement as a ludicrous spectacle.

Image result for The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument

When recently asked to help reveal more of what happened during that time, it occurred to me that people could benefit from learning the general techniques used to disrupt grassroots movements. Examined more closely, the techniques used by infiltrators or disruptors can be seen as expressions of commonly known rules of debate. Specifically, the rules are reflected in philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s sarcastic publication, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument. Here are a few examples of how these techniques were used to disrupt 9/11 questioning.

“The Extension” takes a proposal beyond its intended limits so that the extended proposal can be refuted and thereby make the original statement sound weaker. A 9/11 example took the question about whether an aircraft had actually hit the Pentagon and extended it to all other aspects of 9/11. Therefore if there was no plane at the Pentagon then there were no planes at all, and no alleged hijackers, and so on.

“The Homonymy” is a misuse of a proposition through use of similar words. The government agency NIST utilized this method effectively by replacing words in its reports with weaker homonyms, making it easier for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC to sound more plausible. Therefore fireproofing became “insulation” and joists became “trusses.”

Using the “Postulate What Has to Be Proved” rule, 9/11 disruptors presented and then destroyed their own straw man arguments. That is, they first framed the questions in simplified, diverting ways and then refuted those “straw man” frames. This was the go to technique of the “debunkers” at Popular Mechanics.

The method of “Make Your Opponent Angry” was frequently used. Through the years, infiltrators often resorted to baseless accusations, threats, and absurd insinuations. Luckily, this could be easily spotted.

In the “Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition” technique, the disruptor frames the issue as two very distinct options. This is the “split screen” method that FOX News used so well over may years to move national discussions toward extreme views. With 9/11, it was again most well demonstrated by arguments over the Pentagon in which everyone was either a “planer” or a “no-planer.” All other questioning about the Pentagon event was forsaken as a result of this mindless dichotomy.

Using “Arguments Ad Hominem,” Schopenhauer described how the opponent could be shown to be inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy. With 9/11 questioning, disruptors often attacked the person (ad hominem) rather than the argument itself.

Fetzer helped the government deflect questions by using the “Make Him Exaggerate His Statement” technique in which “when you refute this exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had also refuted his original statement.” In the short time that he was in the 9/11 limelight, Fetzer would begin every interview with the claim that my former company UL had “certified the steel used in the World Trade center to 2000 degrees for six hours.” Despite being an incorrect exaggeration, Fetzer continued to use it even after that fact was made clear to him. Ultimately this allowed the government agency NIST to refute Fetzer’s exaggerated claim, quoting it word for word, rather than address true questions about UL’s certification of the WTC steel components.

In the “Find One Instance to the Contrary” method, the disruptor simply finds one example of when a proposition was not met. For example, a disruptor would argue that because the WTC towers were destroyed from the top down, they could not be demolitions because all demolitions occur from the bottom up. This was the argument from “skeptic” Michael Shermer when I debated him on Air America radio in 2007. In order to support his contention, Shermer casually claimed to have watched thousands of demolition videos during the 2-minute radio break. Unfortunately for him, a top-down demolition was posted on a leading 9/11 truth website which I referred to at the time.

With the “Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category” technique, 9/11 questioning was frequently conflated with positions that were seen as hateful or stupid. This led to some members of the media lumping “truthers” in with “birthers,” holocaust deniers, and those who question the moon landings.

In retrospect, it is comforting to know that so much effort at disruption was needed to prevent 9/11 questions from taking over the national discussion. It means that many people were informed to some degree and that citizen groups working for the truth were seen as a threat to a corrupt system. Many people are now aware that terrorism events are not as simple as the government and mainstream media portray them.

People need to be able to recognize infiltration of grassroots movements because the system will not change on its own. It’s likely that only a catastrophic and catalyzing realization on the part of a large segment of society will lead to any real change and recognizing the techniques of disruption could help achieve that realization.

*

This article was originally published on Dig Within.

Featured image is from The Greanville Post.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Techniques Used to Disrupt 9/11 Questioning

Last week, rallies in support of Julian Assange were held around the world. We participated in two #AssangeUnity events seeking to #FreeAssange in Washington, DC.

This is the beginning of a new phase of the campaign to stop the persecution of Julian Assange and allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London without the threat of being arrested in the UK or facing prosecution by the United States.

On April 10 2017 people gathered outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to celebrate the 11th Birthday of WikiLeaks. From Wise-Up Action: A Solidarity Network for Manning and Assange.

The Assange Case is a Linchpin For Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Information in the 21st Century

The threat of prosecution against Julian Assange for his work as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks will be a key to defining what Freedom of the Press means in the 21st Century. Should people be allowed to know the truth if their government is corrupt, violating the law or committing war crimes? Democracy cannot exist when people are misled by a concentrated corporate media that puts forth a narrative on behalf of the government and big business.

This is not the first time that prosecution of a journalist will define Freedom of the Press. Indeed, the roots of Freedom of the Press in the United States go back to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger, a publisher who was accused of libel in 1734 for publishing articles critical of the British royal governor, William Cosby. Zenger was held in prison for eight months awaiting trial. In the trial, his defense took its case directly to the jury.

For five hundred years, Britan had made it illegal to publish “any slanderous News” that may cause “discord” between the king and his people. Zenger’s defense argued that he had published the truth about Cosby and therefore did not commit a crime. His lawyer “argued that telling the truth did not cause governments to fall. Rather, he argued, ‘abuse of power’ caused governments to fall.” The jury heard the argument, recessed and in ten minutes returned with a not guilty verdict.

The same issue is presented by Julian Assange — publishing the truth is not a crime. Wikileaks, with  Assange as its editor and publisher, redefined reporting in the 21st Century by giving people the ability to be whistleblowers to reveal the abuses of government and big business. People anonymously send documents to Wikileaks via the Internet and then after reviewing and authenticating them, Wikileaks publishes them.  The documents sometimes reveal serious crimes, which has resulted in Assange being threatened with a secret indictment for espionage that could keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life.

This puts the Assange case at the forefront of 21st Century journalism as he is democratizing the media by giving people the power to know the truth not reported, or falsely reported, by the corporate media. Breaking elite control over the media narrative is a serious threat to their power because information is power. And, with the internet and the ability of every person to act as a media outlet through social and independent media, control of the narrative is moving toward the people.

WikiLeaks is filling a void with trust in the corporate media at record lows. A recent Gallup Poll found only 32% trust the media. There has been a significant drop in newspaper circulation and revenue, an ongoing decline since 1980. Also, fewer people rely on television for news.

In this environment, the internet-based news is becoming more dominant and WikiLeaks is a particular threat to media monopolization by the elites. Research is showing that independent and social media are having an impact on people’s opinions.

The threats to Julian Assange are occurring when dissent is under attack, particularly media dissent; the FBI has a task force to monitor social media. The attack on net neutrality, Google using algorithms to prevent searches for alternative media and Facebook controlling the what people see are all part of the attack on the democratized media..

The Astounding Impact of WikiLeaks’ Reporting

The list of WikiLeaks’ revelations has become astounding. The release of emails from Hillary Clinton, her presidential campaign, and the Democratic National Committee had a major impact on the election. People saw the truth of Clinton’s connections to Wall Street, her two-faced politics of having a public view and a private view as well as the DNC’s efforts to undermine the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders. People saw the truth and the truth hurt Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Among the most famous documents published were those provided by Chelsea Manning on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Guantanamo Prison and the US State Department. The Collateral Murder video among the Manning Iraq war documents shows US soldiers in an Apache helicopter gunning down a group of innocent men, including two Reuters employees, a photojournalist, and his driver, killing 16 and wounding two children. Millions have viewed the video showing that when a van pulled up to evacuate the wounded, the soldiers again opened fire. A soldier says, “Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards.”

Another massive leak came from Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who exposed massive NSA spying in the United States and around the world. This was followed by Vault 7, a series of leaks on the Central Intelligence Agency’s activities, and Vault 8, which included source code on CIA malware activities.

WikiLeaks has also published documents on other countries, e.g. WikiLeaks published a series of documents on Russian spying.  WikiLeaks has been credited by many with helping to spark the Tunisian Revolution which led to the Arab Spring, e.g., showing the widespread corruption of the 23-year rule of the Ben AliForeign Policy reported that “the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.” WikiLeaks’ publications provided democracy activists in Egypt with information needed to spark protests and provided background that explained the Egyptian uprising. Traditional media publications like the New York Times relied on WikiLeaks to analyze the causes of the uprising.

WikiLeaks informed the Bahrain public about their government’s cozy relationship with the US, describing a $5 billion joint-venture with Occidental Petroleum and $300 million in U.S. military sales and how the U.S. Navy is the foundation of Bahrain’s national security.

John Pilger describes WikiLeaks’ documents, writing,

“No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account.”

Free Assange rally at the White House, June 19, 2018. From Gateway Pundit.

Assange Character Assassination And Embassy Imprisonment

Julian Assange made powerful enemies in governments around the world, corporate media, and big business because he burst false narratives with the truth. As a result, governments fought back, including the United States,  Great Britain, and Sweden, which has led to Assange being trapped in the embassy of Ecuador in London for six years.

The root of the incarceration were allegations in Sweden. Sweden’s charges against Assange were initially dropped by the chief prosecutor,  two weeks later they found a prosecutor to pursue a rape investigation. One of the women had CIA connections and bragged about her relationship with Assange in tweets she tried to erase. She even published a 7-step program for legal revenge against lovers. The actions of the women do not seem to show rape or any kind of abuse. One woman held a party with him after the encounter and another went out to eat with him.  In November 2016, Assange was interviewed by Swedish prosecutors for four hours at the Ecuadorian embassy. In December 2016, Assange published tweets showing his innocence and the sex was consensual. Without making a statement on Assange’s guilt, the Swedish investigators dropped the charges in May 2017. The statute of limitations for Swedish charges will be up in 2020.

As John Pilger pointed out,

“Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, ‘The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder, and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.’”

Assange is still trapped in the embassy as he would be arrested for violating his bail six years ago. But, the real threat to Assange is the possibility of a secret indictment against him in the United States for espionage. US and British officials have refused to tell Assange’s lawyers whether there was a sealed indictment or a sealed extradition order against him. Former CIA Director, now Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo has described WikiLeaks as a non-state hostile intelligence service and described his actions as not protected by the First Amendment. In April 2017, CNN reported,

“US authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.”

The Obama Justice Department determined it would be difficult to bring charges against Assange because WikiLeaks wasn’t alone in publishing documents stolen by Manning but the Trump DOJ believes he could be charged as an accomplice with Edward Snowden.

When the president campaigned, Trump said he loved WikiLeaks and regularly touted their disclosures. But, in April 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Time To Stop The Persecution Of Julian Assange

The smearing of Assange sought to discredit him and undermine the important journalism of WikiLeaks. Caitlin Johnstone writes that they smear him because “they can kill all sympathy for him and his outlet, it’s as good for their agendas as actually killing him.”

Even with this character assassination many people still support Assange. This was seen during the #Unity4J online vigil, which saw the participation of activists, journalists, whistleblowers andn filmmakers calling for the end of Assange’s solitary confinement and his release. This was followed a week later by 20 protests around the world calling for Assange’s release.

Julian Assange has opened journalism’s democracy door; the power to report is being redistributed, government employees and corporate whistleblowers have been empowered and greater transparency is becoming a reality. The people of the United States should demand that Assange not face prosecution and embrace a 21st Century democratized media that provides greater transparency and accurate information about what government and business interests are doing. Prosecuting a news organization for publishing the truth, should be rejected and Assange should be freed.

You can support Julian Assange by spreading the word in your communities about what is happening to him and why. You can also show support for him on social media. We will continue to let you know when there are actions planned. And you can support the WikiLeaks Legal Defense Fund, run by the Courage Foundation*, at IAmWikiLeaks.org.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers are co-directors of Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. Kevin is on the advisory board of the Courage Foundation.

In February, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, called for the mass emigration of French Jews, and their assets, to Israel.  This was rejected outright by both Jewish and non-Jewish European leaders as a politically-motivated speech designed to bolster his personal rating with his electorate at home. 

The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, regretted Netanyahu’s call, noting that the Israeli prime minister was “in the midst of a general election campaign”, whilst the President of France, François Hollande, insisted that no one should believe tha“Jews no longer have a place in Europe.  Jews have their place in Europe and, in particular, in France,” he said.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said

“We are glad and thankful that there is Jewish life in Germany again, and we would like to continue living well together with the Jews who are in Germany today.”

There was also considerable disquiet among British Jewry who saw in Netanyahu’s call to emigrate to Israel, a direct threat to Jewish life in the United Kingdom and a destabilising and dangerous election ploy.

In fact, Netanyahu’s political career is close to its nadir as he awaits a police decision whether he should be prosecuted on charges of bribery and corruption.  His wife has already been indicted for fraud. More importantly, however, is the Likud Party agenda for a Greater Israel, for which Netanyahu is, and has been for a decade or more, the chief protagonist.  This agenda calls for the forced transfer of millions of indigenous Arabs to adjacent states and is the primary cause of increasing antisemitism in Europe and around the world, including on campuses throughout the United States.

Of course, the more that antisemitism increases, the greater will be the fear of racial violence and the consequent decision by some Jews to abandon the countries of their birth in order to emigrate to the Middle East in the mistaken belief that they will be safer there than in Europe or America.  This is, of course, nonsense as Israel is arguably the most dangerous place for anyone to live.   But Likud propaganda is a potent force that misleads both Jews and non-Jews alike.

It is expected the Netanyahu will very soon be replaced but the damage he has inflicted on both Israel itself and the Diaspora, has been considerable.  By his perverse and inflammatory attitude in encouraging further illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, he has put back the peace agenda by at least ten years.

That there will eventually be an independent Palestinian state with the repatriation of all 600,000 illegal settlers back to Israel, is without any doubt but Netanyahu’s role in the killings and deaths on both sides, will not be forgotten.

In the next days, as Prince William goes to bed in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, he would do well to remember that it was Netanyahu’s party’s forerunner organisation, the Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL) terrorists that carried out the bombing attack on the very Hotel in which he will now sleep, in 1946, with the killing of 91 people including many British military and civilian lives.

*

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

The current US President, Donald Trumpclaimed on June 18th, that Germany’s leadership, and the leadership in other EU nations, caused the refugee-crisis that Europe is facing:  

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

The US Government is clearly lying about this. The US Government itself caused this crisis that Europeans are struggling to deal with. Would the crisis even exist, at all, if the US had not invaded and tried to overthrow (and in some instances actually overthrown) the governments in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere — the places from which these refugees are escaping?

The US Government, and a few of its allies in Europe (the ones who actually therefore really do share in some of the authentic blame for this crisis) caused this war and government-overthrow, etc., but Germany’s Government wasn’t among them, nor were many of the others in Europe.

If the US Government had not led these invasions, probably not even France would have participated in any of them. The US Government, alone, is responsible for having caused these refugees. The US Government itself created this enormous burden to Europe, and yet refuses to accept these refugees that it itself had produced, by its having invaded and bombed to overthrow (among others) Libya’s Government, and then Syria’s Government, and by its aiding Al Qaeda in organizing and leading and arming, jihadists from all over the world to come to Syria to overthrow Syria’s Government and to replace it with one that would be selected by the US regime’s key Middle Eastern ally, the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, including its Government, and who are determined to take over Syria.

Trump blames Angela Merkel for — in essence — having been an ally of the US regime, a regime of aggression which goes back decades, and which Trump himself now is leading, instead of his ending, and of his restoring democracy to the United States, and, finally, thus, his restoring freedom (from America), and peace, to other nations, in Europe, and elsewhere (such as in Syria, Yemen, etc.). He blames Merkel, not himself and his predecessor — not the people who actually caused these refugees.

Hypocrisy purer than that which Trump there expressed, cannot be imagined, and this hypocrisy comes from Trump now, no longer from Obama, who, in fact, caused the problem.

As the 2016 study, “An Overview of the Middle East Immigrants in the EU: Origin, Status Quo and Challenges” states in its Abstract:

“EU has the most inhabited immigrant population; it has up to a population of 56 million foreign-born people. And due to the perennial war and chaos in the Middle East, the amount of relocated population in the region, especially the number of refugees, ranks the No.1 all over the world. … There are a large number of refugees and asylum seekers heading to EU countries; it can be divided into four stages. Since the Arab Spring, especially after the outbreak of the civil war in Syria in 2011, and the rise of the “Islamic State” in 2013, the whole EU area have experienced the biggest wave of refugees since World War II.”

All of these invasions have been, and are, invasions of countries where the US regime demands regime-change.

In order to understand the deeper source of this problem, one must understand, first, the US regime’s continuing obsession to conquer Russia after its communism and Warsaw Pact military alliance, had ended (click onto that link to see the documentation); and, second, one needs to understand the US regime’s consequent and consistent aim after the supposed end of the Cold War, to take over control of Russia’s allied countries, including not only those within the Soviet Union and its military Warsaw Pact, but also within the Middle East, especially Syria and Iran, and even countries such as Libya, where the leader was nominally Sunni but nonetheless friendly toward Russia.

(The link there provides documentation not only of what’s said here, but it also documents that the alliance between the two aristocracies, of the US and of Saudi Arabia, is essential to the US aristocracy’s Middle-Eastern objective; and Israel’s aristocracy serves as an essential agent of the Sauds in this crucial regard, because the Sauds rely heavily upon the Israeli regime to do its lobbying in Washington.

In other words: America’s consistent objective is to isolate Russia so as for the US regime to emerge ultimately in a position to take over Russia itself. That’s the deeper source of Europe’s refugee-crisis.)

Back at the start of the promised post-Cold-War period, in 1990, the US regime, under its then-President, George Herbert Walker Bush, privately and repeatedly agreed with the USSR regime, under its then-President Mikhail Gorbachev, to end the Cold War — agreed that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east” — that there would be no expansion of the US military alliance against the USSR (soon to become against Russia alone).

The US regime’s promise was that NATO would not take in and add to NATO’s membership, any of the countries that then were either in the USSR’s military alliance the Warsaw Pact (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania) or in USSR itself other than Russia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan), except for the eastern part of Germany. The US regime simply lied. But the Russian Government followed through on all of its commitments. Russia was now trapped, by Gorbachev’s having trusted liars, whose actual goal turned out to be world-conquest — not peace.

Currently, the membership of NATO includes all of the former Warsaw Pact nations, and now the US regime aims to bring in also to “NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹ and Ukraine.” Georgia and Ukraine are the first parts of the former USSR republics — not merely parts of the Warsaw Pact but parts now of the USSR itself — to join the anti-Russian military alliance, if either of them gets allowed in. The very possibility of this happening, goes beyond anything that the naive, trusting, Mikhail Gorbachev, would ever have imagined. He hadn’t the slightest idea of how evil was (and still is) America’s Deep State (that which controls America). But now we all know. History is clear and unambiguous on the matter.

The NATO mouthpiece, Brookings Institution, headlined on 15 November 2001, “NATO Enlargement: Moving Forward; Expanding the Alliance and Completing Europe’s Integration” and pretended that this expansion is being done in order to help Europeans, instead of to conquer Russia.

Ukraine has the longest of all European borders with Russia and so has been America’s top target to seize. But before seizing it, the US had tried in 2008 to turn Georgia against Russia, and the Georgian Mikheil Saakashvili was a key US agent in that effort. Saakashvili subsequently became involved in the violent coup that overthrew Ukraine’s Government in February 2014.

Saakashvili organized the Georgian contingent of the snipers that were sent to Ukraine to shoot into the crowds on the Maidan Square and kill both police and demonstrators there, in such a way so that the bullets would seem to have come from the police (Berkut) and/or other forces of Ukraine’s democratically elected Government. (Click on this link to see two of the Georgian snipers casually describing their participation in the coup, and referring tangentially to former Georgian President Saakashvili’s role in it. Here is a more comprehensive video compilation describing and showing the coup itself. As I have pointed out, the testimony of these two Georgian snipers is entirely consistent with what the investigation by the EU’s Foreign Ministry had found out on 26 February 2014 about the snipers, that “they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides” and that these snipers were “from the new coalition government” instead of from the government that was being overthrown — that it was a coup, no ‘revolution’ such as Obama’s people claimed, and Trump’s people now assert.) The US regime has agents in all regions of the former Russia-affiliated bloc — not only in Western Europe.

Obama’s coup to grab Ukraine away from its previous neutrality and to make it immediately a neo-Nazi rabidly anti-Russian country, has destroyed Ukraine — not only from the standpoint of the EU, but (and click on the link if you don’t already know this) from the standpoint of the Ukrainian people themselves. Who wouldn’t want to leave there?

Europe has refugees from the Ukrainian operation too, not only (though mainly) from the Middle Eastern ones.

Europe’s enemy isn’t Russia’s aristocracy, but America’s aristocracy. It’s the billionaires who control America’s international corporations — not the billionaires who control Russia’s international corporations — it is specifically America’s billionaires; it is the people who control the US Government; these, and no Russians at all, are the actual decision-makers, who are behind bringing down Europe. In order for Europe to win, Europeans must know whom their real enemies are. The root of the problem is in the US, Europe’s now fake ‘ally’. Today’s America isn’t the America of the Marshall Plan. The US Government has since been taken over by gangsters. And they want to take over the world. Europe’s refugee-crisis is simply one of the consequences.

In fact, Obama had started, by no later than 2011, to plan these regime-change operations, in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. But, in any case, none of the regime-change operations that caused the current unprecedented flood of refugees into Europe started because of what Europe’s leaders did (other than their cooperating with the US regime). Today’s American Government is Europe’s enemy, no friend at all, to the peoples of Europe. Trump’s blaming this crisis on Europe’s leaders isn’t just a lie; it is a slanderous one.

And this fact is separate from Trump’s similar slanderous lie against the refugees themselves. On May 8th, Germany’s Die Welt newspaper had headlined “Number of crimes falls to lowest level since 1992” and reported that Germany’s Interior Minister, Horst Seehofer, announced the 2017 national crime statistics, and he said, “Germany has become safer,” the safest in the last 30 years. Seehofer happens to be a member of Chancellor Merkel’s Administration who is angling to replace her as Chancellor by appealing to the strong anti-immigrant portion of their own conservative party, but even he had to admit, essentially, that the anti-immigrant slur that Trump subsequently made on June 18th is a bald lie; it’s even the exact opposite of the truth. Trump’s tweeted comment then was a lying slander not only against Merkel and other European leaders, but also against the refugees that the US regime itself had produced. How depraved is that? How depraved is Trump?

The refugee crisis isn’t due to the refugees themselves; and it’s not due to Europe’s leaders; it is due to the almost constantly lying US regime — the people who actually control America’s Government and America’s international corporations.

On June 21st, Manlio Dinucci at Global Research headlined “The Circuit of Death in the ‘Enlarged Mediterranean’” and he opened by saying,

“The politico-media projectors, focussed as they are on the migratory flow from South to North across the Mediterranean, are leaving other Mediterranean flows in the dark – those moving from North to South, comprised of military forces and weapons.”

But the world’s biggest international seller of weapons is the US, not the EU; so, his placing the main focus on European billionaires was wrong. The main culprits are on Trump’s own side of the Atlantic, and this is what is being ignored, on both sides of the Atlantic. The real problem isn’t across the Mediterranean; it is across the Atlantic. That’s where Europe’s enemy is.

On 7 August 2015, I headlined “The US Is Destroying Europe” and reported that:

“In Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries at the periphery or edges of Europe, US President Barack Obama has been pursuing a policy of destabilization, and even of bombings and other military assistance, that drives millions of refugees out of those peripheral areas and into Europe, thereby adding fuel to the far-rightwing fires of anti-immigrant rejectionism, and of resultant political destabilization, throughout Europe, not only on its peripheries, but even as far away as in northern Europe.”

It’s continuing under Trump.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF.

As the European Union imposed tariffs on €2.8 billion worth of American products yesterday, in retaliation for US tariffs on steel and aluminium, President Trump again threatened to escalate the trans-Atlantic trade war.

Trump fired off a tweet on Friday morning declaring that if the EU did not remove existing tariffs on US auto exports, “we will be placing a 20 percent tariff on all of their cars coming into the US.”

The EU has announced a two-phase response to the US steel and aluminium measures. According to a list submitted to the World Trade Organisation, a 25 percent tariff on a range of products, from peanut butter and bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcyles, takes effect immediately. Tariffs on a further €3.6 billion worth of US goods will be imposed after three years or earlier if the WTO rules in the EU’s favour.

Speaking on the imposition of the EU measures, European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said:

“We did not want to be in this position. However, the unilateral and unjustified decision of the US to impose steel and aluminium tariffs on the EU means that we are left with no other choice.”

She said:

“Rules of international trade, which we have developed hand in hand with our American partners, cannot be violated without a reaction from our side.”

The US measures were imposed under section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act invoking “national security” as their rationale. As the European measures went into effect, Canada is set to impose tariffs next month while Mexico had already done so, as both countries, like the EU, failed to secure a carve-out from the US measures.

Trump’s latest threat to extend tariff measures on autos, using the same “national security” provision as was employed in the case of steel and aluminium, would provoke a much bigger conflict, especially with Germany.

The US imported almost 1.3 million vehicles from the EU last year with the three big Germany companies, BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen exporting 726,300 of these.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the latest Trump tariff tweet underscored

“the importance he is placing on a probe his administration launched last month into whether big tariffs could be imposed on vehicle imports in the name of national security.”

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department is overseeing the investigation, told a Senate committee meeting this week that no decision had been made as yet as to whether to recommend tariffs, He indicated that the probe was expected to be completed by early August.

When he announced the investigation back in May, Ross placed heavy emphasis on national security, saying that for “decades” there was “evidence suggesting that imports from abroad have eroded our domestic auto industry. Economic security is military security. And without economic security, you cannot have military security.”

Trump is clearly looking to press ahead as his latest tweet indicates. It followed his address to a “Make America Great Again” rally in Minnesota earlier this week, in which he denounced the EU for saying “we’re going to sell you millions of cars, by the way, you’re not going to sell us any.”

The EU has declined to comment on the latest Trump threat with one official telling the Wall Street Journal:

“Everything that we have to say on that subject has already [been] expressed … at various occasions over the last weeks.”

When the US Commerce Department investigation into the auto industry was announced last month, EU spokesman Margaritis Schinas said there was no justification for the tariffs on steel and aluminium, adding that “invoking national security would be even more far-fetched in the case of the car industry.” Industry spokesmen also warned that if tariffs were invoked they would lead to a disruption of the global car industry.

The US trade war against China and the threat of auto tariffs has already made an impact on the German car industry. This week Daimler, the maker of Mercedes cars, issued a profit warning on the impact of the growing trade war. It said it now expected that profit figures for 2018 would be “slightly below” the level of last year, after earlier predicting a rise.

It stated that the imposition of tariffs on US car exports to China, the major export market for its US plants, was the “decisive factor” in the profit downgrade.

“Fewer than expected SUV sales and higher than expected costs … must be assumed because of increased import tariffs for US sales into the Chinese market,” the company said.

The escalation of a US trade war is starting to cause concerns in international financial circles. This week saw the Trump administration threaten to impose tariffs on up to $400 billion of Chinese goods on top of the tariffs on $50 billion worth of high-tech products to come into effect next month

While it was not the central item on the agenda, trade war and its dangers were the subject of comment and warnings at the annual meeting of central bankers convened by the European Central Bank (ECB) in Sintra, Portugal, this week.

“Changes in trade policy could cause us to have to question the outlook, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve Jerome Powell said during a panel discussion. “For the first time, we’re hearing about decisions to postpone investment, postpone hiring.”

ECB president Mario Draghi said it was still too early to measure the economic impact, but he was concerned about the erosion of confidence among businesses.

It was not time yet to see what impact the trade conflicts could have on central bank monetary policy, he stated, but “there’s no ground to be optimistic on that.”

The lesson to be learned from history was that the consequences of trade conflicts and protection were “all very negative” and the spread of disputes was undermining “the multilateral framework that all of us have grown up with,” Draghi said.

The governor of the Bank of Japan, Haruhiko Kuroda, warned that the impact of the trade war could disrupt the economic network across East Asia that supplies China.

“I really hope that this escalation could be rescinded, and a normal trading relationship between the US and China would prevail. This is a matter of great concern for Japan,” he said.

The sharpest warning came from the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia Philip Lowe. He said while tariffs alone would not derail global growth, they could spark market volatility and lead to the postponement of business decisions.

“It wouldn’t take that much for financial markets to combine with businesses that are waiting to turn this into a big global event. I hope it has a low probability, but I’m very disturbed at what is happening.”

Lowe said there was no country that had become wealthier and boosted productivity growth by building walls.

“I view what’s happening as incredibly worrying.”

*

Featured image is from Foreign Policy.

First Israel built a sophisticated missile interception system named Iron Dome to neutralise the threat of homemade rockets fired out of Gaza.

Next it created technology that could detect and destroy tunnels Palestinians had cut through the parched earth deep under the fences Israel erected to imprison Gaza on all sides.

Israel’s priority was to keep Gaza locked down with a blockade and its two million inhabitants invisible.

Now Israel is facing a new and apparently even tougher challenge: how to stop Palestinian resistance from Gaza using flaming kites, which have set fire to lands close by in Israel. F-16 fighter jets are equipped to take on many foes but not the humble kite. 

These various innovations by Palestinians are widely seen by Israelis as part of the same relentless campaign by Hamas to destroy their country. 

But from inside Gaza, things look very different. These initiatives are driven by a mix of recognisably human emotions: a refusal to bow before crushing oppression; a fear of becoming complicit through silence and inaction in being erased and forgotten; and a compelling need to take back control of one’s life. 

Palestinians encaged in Gaza, denied entry and exit by Israel via land, sea and air for more than a decade, know that life there is rapidly becoming unsustainable. Most young people are unemployed, much of the infrastructure and housing are irreparably damaged, and polluted water sources are near-unpotable. 

After waves of military attacks, Gaza’s children are traumatised with mental scars that may never heal. 

This catastrophe was carefully engineered by Israel, which renews and enforces it daily. 

Image result for The Defiance that Launched Gaza’s Flaming Kites Cannot be Extinguished

The kites have long served as a potent symbol of freedom in Gaza. Children have flown them from the few spots in the tiny, congested enclave where people can still breathe – from rooftops or on Gaza’s beaches. 

Five years ago, the film Flying Paper documented the successful efforts of Gaza’s children to set a new world record for mass kite-flying. The children defied Israel’s blockade, which prevents entry of most goods, by making kites from sticks, newspapers and scraps of plastic. 

The children’s ambition was – if only briefly – to retake Gaza’s skies, which Israel dominates with its unseen, death-dealing drones that buzz interminably overhead and with missiles that can flatten a building in seconds. 

A young girl observed of the kite’s lure:

“When we fly the kite, we know that freedom exists.”

A message scrawled on one read:

“I have the right to pride, education, justice, equality and life.” 

But the world record attempt was not only about the children’s dreams and their defiance. It was intended to highlight Gaza’s confinement and to issue a reminder that Palestinians too are human. 

That same generation of children have grown into the youths being picked off weekly by Israeli snipers at unarmed protests at the perimeter fence – the most visible feature of Israel’s infrastructure of imprisonment. 

A few have taken up kite-flying again. If they have refused to put away childish things, this time they have discarded their childish idealism. Their world record did not win them freedom, nor even much notice. 

After the snipers began maiming thousands of the demonstrators, including children, medics and journalists, for the impudence of imagining they had a right to liberty, the enclave’s youths reinvented the kite’s role. 

If it failed to serve as a reminder of Palestinians’ humanity, it could at least remind Israel and the outside world of their presence, of the cost of leaving two million human beings to rot. 

So the kites were set on fire, flaming emissaries that brought a new kind of reckoning for Israel when they landed on the other side of the fence. 

Gaza’s inhabitants can still see the lands from which many of them were expelled during the mass dispossession of the Palestinian people in 1948 – under western colonial sponsorship – to create a Jewish state. 

Not only were those lands taken from them, but the Jewish farming communities that replaced them now irrigate their crops using water Palestinians are deprived of, including water seized from aquifers under the West Bank. 

The kites have rained fire down on this idyll created by Israel at the expense of Gaza’s inhabitants. No one has been hurt but Israel claims extinguishing the fires has already cost some $2 million and 7,000 acres of farmland have been damaged. 

Sadly, given the profound sense of entitlement that afflicts many Israelis, a small dent in their material wellbeing has not pricked consciences about the incomparably greater suffering only a few kilometres away in Gaza. 

Instead, Israel’s public security minister Gilad Erdan called last week for anyone flying a kite, even young children, to be shot. He and other ministers have argued that another large-scale military assault on Gaza is necessary to create what Erdan has termed “durable deterrence”. 

That moment seems to be moving inexorably closer. The last few days have seen Israel launch punitive air strikes to stop the kites and Palestinian factions retaliate by firing significant numbers of rockets out of Gaza for the first time in years. 

The Trump administration is no longer pretending to mediate. It has publicly thrown in its hand with Israel. It withdrew last week from the United Nations Human Rights Council, accusing it of being a “cesspool of political bias” after the council criticised Israel for executing Gaza’s unarmed demonstrators.

On a visit to the region last week, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, urged ordinary Palestinians to rebel against their leaders’ refusal to accept a long-awaited US peace plan that all evidence suggests will further undermine Palestinian hopes of a viable state. 

Kushner is apparently unaware that the Palestinian public is expressing its will, for liberation, by protesting at the Gaza fence – and risking execution by Israel for doing so.

Meanwhile, Prince William is due in Israel on Monday, the first British royal to make an official visit since the mandate ended 70 years ago. While Kensington Palace has stressed that the trip is non-political, William will meet both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in an itinerary that has already been claimed by both sides as a victory. 

From the vantage point of the Mount of Olives, from which he will view Jerusalem’s Old City, the prince may not quite manage to see the kite battles in Gaza’s skies that underscore who is Goliath and who is David. But he should see enough in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem to understand that western leaders have decisively chosen the side of Goliath. 

*

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein

June 24th, 2018 by Rand Clifford

When Albert Einstein was asked how it felt to be the “smartest person alive”, Einstein replied:

“I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”

Certain scholars question the validity of this exchange, largely because Tesla…well, in 1934, on his 79th birthday, Tesla called Einstein’s Relativity Theory “…a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.”

Other Tesla quotes amid his public disagreement with Einstein, regarding Relativity Theory:

— “…a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense…the theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”

— “Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.” (NYT, 7/11/1935, p. 23).

Einstein was obviously smarter than any of us; his “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla” is certainly proof both subtle and profound.

Perhaps it all depends on the definition of, “smart”?

Reverence of Einstein, historically and publicly seems rather full-scope. His eminence has been welded into the public mind by those who control the public mind, the Power Status Quo (PSQ).

Tesla is exactly the opposite; evidence remains overwhelming. Try to find people today with any understanding of Nikola Tesla—I did just that, yesterday, at Spokane’s Northtown Mall. I approached people seeming approachable with a simple question:

“What does the name ‘Tesla’ mean to you?”

Interacting only with people without a phone in hand, I was, eventually, able to find 66 people with their hands (and minds?) unencumbered. Two trends emerged; for people under thirty, not a single one deviated from the: “…electric cars, battery fires, autopilot crashes” PSQ narratives.

However, I was able to find 3 people that replied: “Nikola Tesla”. All middle-aged vintage.

Yes, five percent were actually aware of, perhaps, humanity’s most important person, Nikola Tesla.

Sure, a tiny random sample. But success of the PSQ’s operation to excise Nikola Tesla from the public mind was clearly suggested. Reminiscent of Pink Floyd’s immortal song, Brain Damage (from Dark Side of the Moon).

So why has the man Einstein declared the smartest person alive so attacked by the PSQ—virtually to the cusp of being an unperson?

One thing right up front exemplifying Tesla’s clash with the PSQ was his often repeated:

“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.”

Meanwhile, the PSQ remains obsessed with their: “Arrested human development.”

Please consider this quote from William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987:

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Of course from the PSQ there is rhetoric regarding authenticity of Casey’s trumpeting of truth. However, virtually all evidence/truth of our current mire confirms Casey’s trumpet.

Perhaps this letter signed by Einstein characterizes what the PSQ would rather hear:

Albert Einstein
Old Grove Rd.
Nassau Point

Peconic, Long Island

August 2nd, 1939

F.D. Roosevelt,
President of the United States,
White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable—through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America—that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:

a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium ore for the United States.

b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsäcker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Yours very truly,

Albert Einstein

*

Einstein himself must have lost some PSQ favor with such later public declarations:

“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

And:

“Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.”

Tesla’s elegant quote about his suppression by the PSQ:

“I am unwilling to accord to some small-minded and jealous individuals the satisfaction of having thwarted my efforts. These men are to me nothing more than microbes of a nasty disease.”

In Part Two:

— “…nasty disease” autopsy

— Tesla’s gifts to humanity—selectively suppressed or embraced

— Is another Tesla possible?

— “…wheelwork of nature”, and PSQ power—both illuminated by Nikola Tesla

*

Rand Clifford lives in Spokane, Washington. His novels, CASTLING, TIMING, and Priest Lake Cathedral are published by StarChief Press. Contact for Rand Clifford: [email protected]

Featured image is from Humans Are Free.

Trump’s views depend on what day he’s expressing them – saying one thing, then another, reversing himself time and again – proving nothing his says is credible, a leader never to be trusted, especially on vital issues.

In mid-June, he declared North Korea is “no longer a nuclear threat” after summit talks with Kim Jong-un.

After returning to Washington, he tweeted:

“Just landed – a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office.”

“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong-un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!”

He suspended military exercises with South Korea – a hollow gesture, a decision to be reversed any time for any reason. War games are more about saber-rattling with China in mind than the DPRK, neither country threatening any others.

The threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula eased for the moment but didn’t end. Summit talks in Singapore didn’t end 70 years of militant US hostility toward Pyongyang, merely cooled them temporarily.

Denuclearizing the peninsula won’t happen as long as iron-clad US guarantees for DPRK security remain unattainable.

Trump’s pledge otherwise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, betrayal sure to come, similar to reneging on the JCPOA, an international agreement, unanimously approved by the Security Council, making it binding international law.

It didn’t matter. Trump pulled out anyway based on fabricated reasons, wanting to please Israel, and longstanding US plans for regime change in Iran.

Washington is hostile to all sovereign independent states, North Korea no exception – a nation the Truman regime raped and destroyed, falsely blaming the DPRK for his high crime of naked aggression.

Deplorable US policy under 13 US administrations kept Pyongyang marginalized and isolated throughout its entire history. It was included in Bush/Cheney’s deplorable “axis of evil,” threatened with destruction by Trump earlier.

It’s just a matter of time before US hostility toward Pyongyang rears its ugly head again.

Did it already begin? Days after summit talks with Kim, Trump’s rhetoric switched from rocket man to high praise for North Korea’s leader.

On Friday, he reverted to longstanding hostility, saying the DPRK still poses an “extraordinary threat” to America – a bald-faced lie. More on this below.

The reverse has been true throughout North Korean history, why it sought nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles – because of genuinely feared US aggression.

The lesson of Truman’s war remains embedded in the national consciousness forever. Preemptive US aggression remains an ominous possibility – solely because of DPRK sovereign independence, not for any threat it imposes.

North Korea wants peace and stability on the peninsula, its sovereignty respected, unacceptable sanctions lifted, a formal end to the 1950s war, and iron-clad security guarantees.

Chances of Washington obliging are virtually nil. Enemies are needed to justify its unjustifiable militarism, its empire of bases, countless trillions of dollars spent waging endless wars against invented adversaries.

Peace and stability defeat its agenda. Permanent wars and chaos serve it.

On Friday, Trump extended a decade-long executive order, declaring a “national emergency” over a nonexistent DPRK nuclear threat.

It reauthorized hostile US policies against the country, notably leaving harsh sanctions in place, stating “the existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material,” along with North Korean policies and actions constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States” – a bald-faced lie.

Yet it proves US hostility toward the country remains unchanged, a virtually certain insurmountable obstacle to overcome, the DPRK remaining in Washington’s crosshairs for an indefinite time to come.

The notion of Washington turning a page in relations with North Korea, or any other sovereign independent country not subservient to its interests, is equating fantasy with reality.

It never happened before in the post-WW II era. It won’t happen now with North Korea, nor with other countries on Washington’s target list for regime change.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Again Calls North Korea a Nuclear Threat. “Saying one Thing, then Another”

In a detailed discussion about the current state of affairs in Gaza as well as what the future could hold, author and scholar Norman Finkelstein tells Chris Hedges that nonviolent mass resistance in Gaza “can’t succeed without our support.”

The “On Contact” episode begins with a list of statistics about Gaza, including frightening rates of youth unemployment, suicide and prostitution, as well as water contamination and other conditions created by Israeli attacks on the region, all of which paint a tragic picture of “the world’s largest concentration camp.”

The two then talk about Finkelstein’s recent book, “Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom,” which Hedges says is “the most important book I’ve read on Gaza, [and which] implodes Israeli propaganda and Israeli lies.”

Watch the full conversation between the two Middle East experts in the video below.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Life in Gaza.”The World’s largest Concentration Camp.”
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Evading Medical Care: Australia’s Refugee Arrangements with Taiwan

US, China and Ultra-Low Oil Prices

June 24th, 2018 by Dr. Dan Steinbock

This article was originally published on March 1, 2016.

The US-led petrodollar era is being surpassed by a multipolar oil age in the Middle East. The transition is permeated by fundamental change and financial speculation that is penalizing the roles of the US and China in the region.

As producers have scrambled to gain market share from competitors, prices remain more than 70% down from summer 2014. Recently, oil ministers from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and Qatar announced an agreement to freeze their oil output levels if other major producers will follow suit. In the near-term, that is not likely.

The current status quo heralds more economic, market and military volatility in the world’s most explosive region.

Eclipse of US-Saudi partnership        

After the 1945 Yalta Conference, which effectively divided Europe, the ailing President Franklin D. Roosevelt rushed to USS Quincy where he met Saudi Arabia’s King Ibn Saud. Bypassing the Brits who had been courting the Saudis for oil, FDR and Saud agreed to a secret deal, which required Washington to provide Saudi Arabia military security in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil.

Despite periodic pressures, the deal survived for quarter of a century, even the 1971 “Nixon Shock,” including the unilateral cancellation of the US dollar convertibility to gold. To deter the marginalization of US dollar in the oil trade, Nixon negotiated another deal, which ensured that Saudi Arabia would denominate all future oil sales in dollars, in exchange for US arms and protection.

As other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals, global demand for US dollars – the so-called « petrodollars » – soared, even though the relative share of the US in the world economy continued to decline. The shrewd move relied on Gulf economies’ leverage to sustain an economically vulnerable American empire.

The US-Saudi strategic partnership has weathered seven decades of multiple regional wars. Today, Saudi Arabia’s military expenditures account for more than 10% of its GDP, which makes it the world’s fourth largest military spender. In relative terms, that’s three times as much as the US and five times as much as China; the world’s two largest military powers.

Along with Washington, the Saudi rearmament has greatly benefited Pentagon’s defense contractors, while boosting the country’s confidence to stand on its own. Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s old days of conservative caution may be history.

Amid a contested succession, Riyadh is taking debt to sustain its generous welfare policies and playing an increasingly assertive role in the region, directly in the Yemen war and indirectly in Syria.

From OPEC to China and emerging economies  

The Washington-Riyadh partnership was first shaken in October 1973 following the Yom Kippur War and the ensuing oil embargo by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). After two oil crises and a global economic recession, three decades of rapid postwar growth in the West ended with a crash.

By the mid-80s, oil prices declined by more than a half, but mainly after the development of major non-OPEC oil fields in Siberia, Alaska, North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. Even Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, September 11, 2001, and US invasion of Iraq in 2003 had fairly short-term impacts on oil prices, as long as Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC ensured adequate oil supplies in the world markets.

When prices began to soar once again, they were fueled by China and large emerging economies. Additional fluctuations were attributed to post-Iraq War instability, insurgencies, US occupation of Iraq, and financial bubbles in the West.

After the global crisis, crude Brent prices did return to almost $130 by early 2011, thanks to stimulus packages, recovery policies and non-traditional monetary policies in the ailing West. Meanwhile, China overtook the US as the world’s biggest oil importer. That period came to an end in 2014, with lingering recovery in the US, secular stagnation in Europe and Japan, and China’s growth deceleration.

As the Fed began to pave way for rate hikes, the value of the dollar started to climb. Since oil markets remain dollar-denominated, oil prices began to decline accordingly. That divided the OPEC. For more than a year, major oil exporters have debated production cuts, which have been resisted by Saudi Arabia – even though more cheap oil could cause OPEC’s revenue to halve to $550 billion.

Why protracted ultra-low oil prices?  

In the advanced West, the primary reason for the low prices is often attributed to China’s deceleration. And yet, while China’s growth has slowed, its per capita incomes are increasing, which is reflected by the growth of oil imports.

Another scapegoat has been Iran and its re-entry into the oil market. Yet, it’s nuclear sanctions were lifted months after the oil prices had plunged and stabilized at below $30. Indeed, if the oil price collapse is attributed to excessive production, the spotlight should be on the largest producers, the US (13.7 millions of barrels per day) and Saudi Arabia (11.9m), not China (4.6m) or Iran (3.4m).

In the final analysis, Saudi Arabia does not want to give market share to US shale producers, while low prices are harming even more Iran (which Riyadh sees as its regional rival) and Russia (which is fighting the Syrian opposition and jihadists, which Riyadh supports). Indeed, both Riyadh and Washington have geopolitical incentives to use low prices against Russia and Iran.

What complicates the projection of oil prices is that they are constrained by financial intermediaries. The oil market is subject to speculation and abrupt price movements that are reminiscent of those in summer 2008, when Goldman Sachs predicted that prices would exceed $200 by the year-end, even though they collapsed to $32 in December. Yet, the projection paid off handsomely to those financial intermediaries that shorted the market with leveraged derivatives in oil futures.

So what’s the parallel today?

Two years ago, major oil producers (e.g., ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell) began to let go of their shale leases. Unlike big oil, shale is still dominated by aggressive but mid-size companies. As banks have predicted ultra-low prices at the $20 range, they have reportedly lent billions of dollars to shale players. Now, the more the prices decline, the more shale players will suffer defaults, which allow big banks to gain greater share of their ownership.

In the U.S., Wall Street banks’ huge involvements with commodities, including oil and gas, as well as the associated moral hazards and market manipulation became public with the US Senate Subcommittee bipartisan report (November 2014) in which Senators Carl Levin and John McCain concluded that

“Wall Street banks have acquired staggeringly large positions and executed massive trades in oil, metal, and other physical commodities.”

Financial volatility and wealth transfers

Recently, the Middle East has witnessed several disruptive scenarios, including the Saudi Defense Minister’s decision to execute Shi’ite religious leader Sheikh Nimr al-Nirm; the escalation of the proxy war in Syria; the fallout between Russia and Turkey, a NATO member; to mention a few.

These disruptive moments do not just create and destroy economic fortunes. They herald shifts in the region’s geopolitics. They also allow financial players to make bets in shadows, behind market noise. The stakes are huge. The transfer of oil wealth is moving an estimated $3 trillion a year from oil producers (in emerging economies) to oil-importing nations (in advanced economies).

In brief, disruptive price plunges have harmed industry giants, while serving certain geopolitical interests. Meanwhile, financial intermediaries stand to benefit ever more, at the expense of consumer welfare. That does not bode well to either the US or China. Financial intermediaries are a different story.

*

This is the revised version of a commentary published by China-US Focus on Feb 29, 2016.

Dr Steinbock is the founder of Difference Group and has served as Research Director at the India, China and America Institute (USA) and Visiting Fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Centre (Singapore). For more, see www.differencegroup.net.

In an interview with the Guardian published on June 19, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a desperate appeal for the bloc’s unity before the upcoming summit in July. The transatlantic bond and political cohesion must be preserved at any cost and it is essential that any potential diplomatic bust-up be avoided. There’s a good reason he made such a statement at this particular moment — the US and its European allies are divided over trade, climate change, the Iran nuclear agreement, military spending, security priorities (including differing attitudes toward Russia), relations with Turkey (a NATO member), and a lot of other things. Frederick Kempe, the president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council, a prestigious think tank that drafts recommendations for the US government, warned about a “potential transatlantic train wreck of American making.”

Last year, US President Trump brought the issue of burden-sharing into the open, by berating his European allies for failing to spend enough on defense. The rift was apparent. This time, this controversial issue is expected to dominate the agenda. Some of the more contentious topics (the elephants in the room) are being kept off the program but they will certainly cloud the atmosphere of the meeting. The US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchisonhas warned that the spending issue will remain a sore point for President Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already said her country will miss the target deadline, thus making the possibility of an open US-German clash at the summit very real.

If the planned Trump-Putin summit takes place prior to or immediately after the NATO meeting, it will be another blow to the West’s unity after the scandalous G7 event. National security adviser John Bolton will travel to Moscow next week, after stops in London and Rome, to prepare for the much-anticipated event. Just imagine the setback this will be to British PM Theresa May’s efforts to isolate Russia internationally over the Salisbury nerve-agent attack! Actually, the very announcement on June 21 of Mr. Bolton’s visit to Moscow has been a serious blow to the UK government, as it was delivered right before Mr. Trump’s working visit to that country on July 13. And there’s more. President Trump publicly taunted German Chancellor Angela Merkel on June 19 over migration, a vital security problem for Europe, but which has no direct impact on the United States. Today the West’s unity looks more like a thing of the past. Not since the 1956 Suez Crisis have divisions within the North Atlantic Alliance been so deep.

The idea is to set these differences aside at the summit and to show unity by approving the main proposals on the agenda, such as a new plan to improve rapid-response capability by deploying 30 troop battalions, 30 squadrons of aircraft, and 30 warships within 30 days. The naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea and the joint training in Iraq are also issues that will be subject to discussion. All these steps are to be taken while decision-making is being streamlined, deployment flexibility is being enhanced, and the rules of engagement are being made more robust.

But whatever is decided and signed will not eliminate the root of the problem. Looking at the world while wearing his “America First” glasses, Donald Trump sees Europe as a competitor that needs to be weakened in order to make the US stronger. And exacerbating differences and divisions inside the blocs, be they the EU or NATO, is the way to do it.

With Brussels in revolt against Washington, Poland and the Baltic States may become the core of another 100% pro-American alliance to protect US interests in Europe. The EU-Poland rift is growing, which increases the possibility of a Polexit while the majority of European states are trying to fend off US domination. The UK finds itself increasingly neglected in Europe and more deeply interested in closer interaction with the US. Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova appear to be fascinated by anything the US does and are ready to do whatever it says. A special relationship between the US, Sweden, and Finland is obviously being shaped. France has become an American ally, joining Washington in the conflicts in the Middle East while vigorously opposing the US policy of trade wars.

The European political landscape is shifting. America is not the only problem Brussels faces. The EU rift over migration has exacerbated to the point that an emergency summit is being planned for June 24, just five days before the “big” summit on June 28-29, which will also include a discussion of that problem. The German coalition government has barely survived the crisis over migrants and appears to be on its last legs. Building refugee camps in North Africa and strengthening the Frontex border agency is a matter of survival for Europe and a problem the US does not care about. The West is deeply divided. Everyone is operating with their own agenda.

The only way to preserve at least the pretense of unity is to find a common enemy, a peril that is jeopardizing the security of all. Those who are striving to save NATO and the EU from collapse are clutching at that straw, which is Russia, an imaginary bogeyman that poses a nonexistent threat. Indeed, escalation is the best way to preserve this eroded unity. But Moscow is an important player that others can to turn to and side with on the world chessboard. For instance, there is a wide disparity between the attitude toward Russia held in the UK vs. in Italy. Turkey is a good example of a NATO member that is able to protect its national interests thanks to Russia’s support.

This isn’t just about Donald Trump and his political views. The essence of the problem is the emergence of the fault lines that run too deep to make the idea of a united West anything but a pipe dream. NATO and the EU have forgotten about their standards. They have been expanding too fast, trying to bring together nations at different levels of development and, correspondingly, with different interests to pursue. Those organizations have grown too large to be able to boast of their unity on all major issues. Having achieved a certain level of expansion, they have begun a transformation into amalgams of groups united by regional or other interests that are challenging the central leaderships.

Growing too fast and too large is not always a good thing. Expansion does not always make alliances stronger. The empire of Alexander the Great did not last long after his death. The last thing the West needs under the current circumstances is a confrontation with Russia. It has enough grievances to grapple with.

*

Alex Gorka is a defense and diplomatic analyst.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Head of NATO Calls for Preserving Unity that Does Not Exist: Prospects for the July Summit
  • Tags: ,

The Russian military officially entered the southwest Syria offensive this evening, a source told Al-Masdar from the Dara’a Governorate. 

The Russian Aerospace Forces unleashed a massive assault over northeastern Dara’a, tonight, targeting several areas controlled by the jihadist rebels.

According to a military source in the government stronghold of Izra’a, the Russian Aerospace Forces launched over 20 airstrikes across northeastern Dara’a tonight.

The source told Al-Masdar that the Russian Aerospace Forces specifically launched airstrikes over the towns of Masikah, Aeeb, and Busra Al-Harir.

The added that the majority of the airstrikes were launched on the jihadist stronghold of Busra Al-Harir, which is located directly east of Izra’a.

This attack by the Russian Aerospace Forces comes just 48 hours after the U.S. State Department issued a stern warning to both the Russian and Syrian governments about escalating their offensive in southwest Syria.

Court documents made public in Virginia and Texas give a glimpse of the systematic brutality being meted out to immigrant children in both public and private jails. Children are strapped down, hooded and beaten, or drugged by force, as part of the everyday procedure in what can only be called the American Gulag.

An Associated Press report published Thursday gave details of the abuses committed last year against young Latino migrants at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center near Staunton, Virginia. Lawyers for the teenage victims sued the prison—a state facility run by a consortium of seven towns and cities in the Shenandoah Valley—and a court hearing is set for July.

According to a half-dozen sworn statements, given by the victims in Spanish and then translated for filing with the federal court for the Western District of Virginia, children as young as 14 were beaten while handcuffed, tied down to chairs while stripped naked and hooded, and held for long periods in solitary confinement, sometimes naked and cold.

All these are forms of torture practiced at Guantanamo Bay and at CIA torture prisons around the world. These techniques have been transferred back into the United States and unleashed on immigrant children, who have been demonized by the Trump administration.

The lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs declares that young Latino immigrants held at Shenandoah “are subjected to unconstitutional conditions that shock the conscience, including violence by staff, abusive and excessive use of seclusion and restraints, and the denial of necessary mental health care.” As a result of “malicious and sadistic applications of force,” the youth have “sustained significant injuries, both physical and psychological.”

A Honduran youth sent to Shenandoah when he was 15 said in his statement,

“Whenever they used to restrain me and put me in the chair, they would handcuff me… [They] strapped me down all the way, from your feet all the way to your chest, you couldn’t really move… They have total control over you. They also put a bag over your head. It has little holes; you can see through it. But you feel suffocated with the bag on.”

A 15-year-old from Mexico who spent nine months at Shenandoah described similar treatment.

“They handcuffed me and put a white bag of some kind over my head,” he said, according to his sworn statement. “They took off all of my clothes and put me into a restraint chair, where they attached my hands and feet to the chair. They also put a strap across my chest. They left me naked and attached to that chair for two and a half days, including at night.”

A 14-year-old Guatemalan youth reported frequent imprisonment in his tiny cell for up to 23 hours a day, as well as long periods of physical restraint.

“When they couldn’t get one of the kids to calm down, the guards would put us in a chair—a safety chair, I don’t know what they call it—but they would just put us in there all day,” he said in his sworn statement. “This happened to me, and I saw it happen to others, too. It was excessive.”

A 17-year-old who fled Mexico to escape an abusive father and drug cartel violence was arrested at the US border and passed through several detention centers before arriving at Shenandoah, one of three facilities in the United States with contracts from the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide “secure facilities” for young immigrants. The boy was frequently shackled, usually with cloth bindings, and reported at least one violent strip search and several beatings. He was driven to attempt suicide several times.

Other allegations include that the Latino youth received worse food and facilities than local juvenile prisoners, mostly white, and that meals were frequently cold and inadequate, leaving the children hungry.

The AP interviewed an unnamed child development specialist who had worked with teens at Shenandoah.

“The majority of the kids we worked with when we went to visit them were emotionally and verbally abused. I had a kid whose foot was broken by a guard,” she said. “They would get put in isolation for months for things like picking up a pencil when a guard had said not to move. Some of them started hearing voices that were telling them to hurt people or hurt themselves, and I knew when they had gotten to Shenandoah they were not having any violent thoughts.”

Because the children held at Shenandoah were unaccompanied minors, rather than separated from their families, there were some suggestions in the media that they had gang connections that somehow justified the brutal treatment. But according to the AP report, a program director at the facility said the youth had been screened for gang connections and were actually suffering from mental health issues resulting from trauma in their home countries.

The acts of torture involved multiple guards at the facility, which was run by a regional board but under the ultimate control of the state government, headed throughout this period by Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe. The new governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, who took office January 1, ordered a state investigation into the claims of abuse, but only after the AP report became public Thursday.

Even younger children were targeted for abuse at a Texas facility operated under contract with the Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to a report published by the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Texas Tribune Tuesday. The allegations were further detailed in a court suit filed by the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law.

The lawsuit charges that the Shiloh Treatment Center in Manvel, Texas administered psychotropic drugs to immigrant children, who in some cases were separated from their parents at the border. Neither the children, some as young as nine years old, nor the parents gave consent to the treatment, and in some cases, children were forcibly drugged as they fought and screamed.

One report reads:

“Some children held at Shiloh reported being given up to nine different pills in the morning and six in the evening, including antipsychotic drugs, antidepressants, Parkinson’s disease medication and seizure medications. They were told they would remain detained if they refused drugs, the lawsuit said. Children also said that after taking the drugs, they experienced side effects that rendered them fatigued and incapable of walking.”

The lawsuit charges:

“ORR routinely administers children psychotropic drugs without lawful authorization… When youth object to taking such medications, ORR compels them. ORR neither requires nor asks for a parent’s consent before medicating a child, nor does it seek lawful authority to consent in parents’ stead. Instead, ORR or facility staff sign ‘consent’ forms anointing themselves with ‘authority’ to administer psychotropic drugs to confined children.”

The seven pills named in the court filings—clonazepam, duloxetine, guanfacine, Geodon, olanzapine, Latuda and divalproex—are medications used to control depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, mood disorders, schizophrenia and seizures. This treatment amounted to applying “chemical straitjackets” to subdue the children, rather than meeting medical needs, the lawsuit charges.

According to the investigative reporting, the ORR paid $3.4 billion to private organizations to hold immigrant children, and nearly half of this, $1.5 billion, went to 13 companies that had been accused of hundreds of serious violations of their responsibility to provide care. These included failure to obtain medical treatment for accidents or illness, “inappropriate contact” between children and staff (apparently of a sexual nature), and neglect.

These reports of horrific treatment of innocent children do not just expose the savagery and sadism of individual guards, administrators and other officials, or the greed of corporate bosses seeking to join in the orgy of profiteering from federal contracts for the detention and abuse of immigrants. What is revealed above all is the criminal character of the American political elite, both Democrats and Republicans, who have deliberately encouraged an atmosphere of brutality and terror as their preferred method of “deterring” immigrants from crossing the US-Mexico border. The responsibility, moreover, rests not just with the sociopathic bully in the White House today, but also with his Democratic predecessor, responsible for more deportations than any previous president.

Obama’s Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson declared that the jailing of Central American refugees seeking asylum, and the separation of parents and children, would have a positive effect in reducing the sudden influx of refugees in 2014. It was Terry McAuliffe, the longtime crony of Hillary Clinton, who presided over the torture of immigrant teenagers at Shenandoah from 2014 to 2017.

The shift from Obama to Trump has not fundamentally changed the policy of the US ruling class towards immigrants, which has always been of an anti-democratic and brutal character. But in the hands of Trump and his fascistic aide Stephen Miller, the brutality has become more systematic, and it is accompanied by a campaign aimed at whipping up anti-immigrant racism and hysteria over the purported danger that the United States will be “overrun,” as Trump claimed in his speech Wednesday night to a rally in Minnesota.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal Thursday, the Trump administration awarded multiple contracts involving tens of millions of dollars earlier this year to build detention facilities for children. This confirms that the mass separation of children from their parents, which followed the announcement of the “zero tolerance” policy by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was not an unexpected byproduct of the new policy, but was planned and deliberate. It is a premeditated crime, the state kidnapping of more than 2,400 children, for which Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen and other top officials should be prosecuted and jailed.

Far from abandoning this policy—as media reports on the executive order issued by Trump Wednesday suggested—the White House is preparing to accelerate the mass detention of immigrants, including children. A Pentagon spokesman said Thursday that military bases in Texas and Arkansas had been reviewed as possible locations for housing as many as 20,000 immigrant children, double the number currently in custody.

*

Featured image is from Countercurrents.

Featured image: Maj. Gen. Igor Kirillov, the chief of the Russian military’s radiation, chemical and biological protection unit (file photo)

Russia says the United States and its allies have relied on fabricated evidence to accuse the Syrian government of conducting chemical attacks against civilians.

“The US, Britain, France and their allies have misled international community … relying on fabrications to accuse Syria of violating the chemical weapons ban with Russian assistance,” said Maj. Gen. Igor Kirillov, the chief of the Russian military’s radiation, chemical and biological protection unit, at a briefing in the capital Moscow on Friday.

He also accused the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, saying

“the remote nature of investigations as well as the collection, analysis and use of the documents obtained without specialists’ trips to the alleged sites of chemical weapons use is in direct contradiction to the convention’s provisions.”

Back in April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also criticized the OPCW’s previous investigations conducted from long distance on alleged chemical attacks in Syria.

In the course of the liberation operation in Eastern Ghouta, which began in February, Moscow has repeatedly warned that different factions of militant outfits in the region could stage gas attacks in a bid to frame the Syrian government.

The suspected chemical weapons attack, however, hit the town of Douma in the Eastern Ghouta region in the suburban area near Damascus on April 7, reportedly killing at least 60 people and wounding more than 1,000 others.

Western countries swiftly blamed the incident on the Syrian government. Damascus rejected the accusations as “chemical fabrications” made by the terrorists themselves in a bid to halt pro-government forces’ advances.

The alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma, however, triggered a missile strike by the US, Britain and France that Russia has denounced as a violation of international law.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Kirillov said the so-called civil defense group White Helmets had doctored samples and used explosive devices to make craters that looked like those left by bombs.

He added that in the images presented by them, they worked at the site of the alleged use of sarin without protective gear, which would have been impossible if the nerve agent had indeed been used there.

Kirillov also lambasted the OPCW for turning a blind eye to the discovery of a militant-run lab and its stockpiles in Eastern Ghouta that contained over 40 metric tons of chlorine and other toxic chemicals.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who spoke at the same briefing, said the chemical lab featured components made in Western Europe.

“We are ready to show evidence that the equipment was taken by terrorists and militants from Western Europe,” she said.

The Syrian government surrendered its stockpiles of chemical weapons in 2014 to a joint mission led by the UN and the OPCW, which oversaw the destruction of the weaponry. However, Western governments and their allies have never stopped pointing the finger at Damascus whenever an apparent chemical attack has taken place.

In April 2017, a suspected sarin gas attack hit the town of Khan Shaykhun in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib, taking at least 80 lives. Accusing Damascus, the US then launched several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base, taking the lives of about 20 people including both Syrian soldiers and civilians.

ISIS remains a threat in eastern Syria. It holds a stretch of land on the eastern bank of the Euphrates which the US has appropriated for itself and the Kurdish-dominated SDF coalition yet refuses to clear. The group also has numerous hiding places in the desert to the west of river which due to its vastness and lack of infrastructure is difficult to control.

June 8-10 ISIS fighters came out of these desert bases in a raiding counter-offensive. In the surprise attack it was able to take over part of the outskirts of the city of Abu Kamal which lies on the Syrian side of the border with Iraq, but were then forced to fall back.

Involved in repelling the ISIS were not just the Syrian army and local tribes organized in the NDF militia units, but also volunteer Iraqi militias of Kata’ib Hezbollah. Since this week this Syrian-Iraqi coalition has a new enemy.

On the night from June 17 to 18 air strikes hit Syrian military bases at Abu Kamal. They killed 22 Kata’ib Hezbollah fighters and an unknown number of Syrians. The Syrians first accused the Americans of hitting them — this was logical since the US hit the Syrian army in eastern Syria four times in May-June 2017, twice in February 2018, and again in April 2018. However Americans denied carrying out any such strikes, and Pentagon denials of this type are credible, as they did not deny any of the previous ones.

So what the heck was going on? This was cleared up when the wrongly accused Americans let it be known who had actually carried out the strikes — Israel:

A US official said on Monday Washington suspects that Israel is behind the air raid that killed dozens of pro-Syrian government fighters in Deir Ezzor province.

“We have reasons to believe that it was an Israeli strike,” the official told AFP on condition of anonymity following the Sunday night raid on Al-Hari, a town controlled by regional militias fighting alongside the Syrian government.

Damascus had accused Washington of being behind the attack; the US military denied any involvement. Iraq’s paramilitary group the Popular Mobilisation Units, which said it lost 22 fighters in the raid, backed the Syrian government’s claim that US aircraft carried out the strike.

“At 22:00 last night a US plane hit a fixed headquarters of the Popular Mobilisation Units’ 45th and 46th brigades defending the border strip with Syria, using two guided missiles which led to the martyrdom of 22 fighters,” the Iran-backed paramilitary group said in a statement.

It demanded an explanation from the United States.

An Iraqi military statement later said no Popular Mobilisation Forces or other Iraqi troops tasked with securing the Iraqi-Syrian border had been hit by the air strike, and it had taken place inside Syria.

“No member of the US-led coalition carried out strikes near Albu Kamal,” Major Josh Jacques, a US Central Command spokesman, told Reuters.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strike was one of the deadliest on forces allied with Syria’s government. According to the Observatory, 52 fighters were killed in the attack.

The attack took place in al-Hari, southeast of the town of Albu Kamal, state news agency SANA said, citing a military source.

It is perhaps notable the Americans were not willing to bear the heat for something they hadn’t done and outed Israel. It may be an indication they are not too crazy about Israel actions here.

Israel demands that Lebanese Hezbollah and phantom Iranian forces (Iran only has individual advisers in Syria, not whole combat units) not be allowed to set up base within 40 miles of Syria’s Golan Heights it has occupied since 1967. The US strongly supports the Israel in this demand and even Russia is not entirely unsympathetic.

Yet here Israel flew more than 500 kilometers to the entire different side of Syria to hit Iraqi Hezbollah and the Syrian military engaged in very real battles against ISIS. It made itself into an air force for ISIS, and for what? That seems totally unclear.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Embattled former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak was the main loser in last month’s election upset that returned Mahathir Mohamad to power as his country’s anti-corruption crusader. Yet, Mr. Razak is not the only one who may be paying the price for allegedly non-transparent and unaccountable governance.

So is Saudi Arabia with a Saudi company having played a key role in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal in which Mr. Razak is suspected to have overseen the siphoning off of at least US$4.5 billion and the Saudi government seemingly having gone out of its way to provide him political cover.

While attention has focussed largely on the re-opening of the investigation of Mr. Razak and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, both of whom have been banned from travel abroad and have seen their homes raided by law enforcement, Saudi Arabia has not escaped policymakers’ consideration. Mr. Razak has denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

The geopolitical fallout of the scandal is becoming increasingly evident. Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu suggested this week that Malaysia was re-evaluating the presence of Malaysian troops in Saudi Arabia, dispatched to the kingdom as part of the 41-nation, Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC).

“The ATM (Malaysian Armed Forces) presence in Saudi Arabia has indirectly mired Malaysia in the Middle East conflict… The government will make a decision on the matter in the near future after a re-evaluation has been completed,” said Mr. Sabu, who is known for his critical view of Saudi Arabia.

In a commentary published late last year that suggests a potential Malaysian re-alignment of its Middle Eastern relationships, Mr. Sabu noted that Saudi wrath has been directed “oddly, (at) Turkey, Qatar, and Iran…three countries that have undertaken some modicum of political and economic reforms. Instead of encouraging all sides to work together, Saudi Arabia has gone on an offensive in Yemen, too. Therein the danger posed to Malaysia: if Malaysia is too close to Saudi Arabia, Putrajaya would be asked to choose a side.”

Putrajaya, a city south of Kuala Lumpur, is home to the prime minister’s residence.

Mr. Sabu went on to say that

“Malaysia should not be too close to a country whose internal politics are getting toxic… For the lack of a better word, Saudi Arabia is a cesspool of constant rivalry among the princes. By this token, it is also a vortex that could suck any country into its black hole if one is not careful. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is governed by hyper-orthodox Salafi or Wahhabi ideology, where Islam is taken in a literal form. Yet true Islam requires understanding Islam, not merely in its Quranic form, but Quranic spirit.”

Since coming to office, Mr. Sabu has said that he was also reviewing plans for a Saudi-funded anti-terrorism centre, the King Salman Centre for International Peace (KSCIP), which was allocated 16 hectares of land in Putrajaya by the Razak government. Mr. Sabu was echoing statements by Mr. Mahathir before the election.

Compounding potential strains in relations with Saudi Arabia, Seri Mohd Shukri Abdull, Mr. Mahathir’s newly appointed anti-corruption czar, who resigned from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in 2016 as a result of pressure to drop plans to indict Mr. Razak, noted that

“we have had difficulties dealing with Arab countries (such as)…Saudi Arabia…”

The investigation is likely to revisit 1MDB relationship’s with Saudi energy company PetroSaudi International Ltd, owned by Saudi businessman Tarek Essam Ahmad Obaid as well as prominent members of the kingdom’s ruling family who allegedly funded Mr. Razak.

It will not have been lost on Saudi Arabia that Mr. Mahathir met with former PetroSaudi executive and whistle blower Xavier Andre Justo less than two weeks after his election victory.

A three-part BBC documentary, The House of Saud: A Family at War, suggested that Mr. Razak had worked with Prince Turki bin Abdullah, the son of former Saudi King Abdullah, to syphon off funds from 1MDB.

Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir came to Mr. Razak’s rescue in 2016 by declaring that US$681 million transferred into the prime minister’s personal bank account was a “genuine donation with nothing expected in return.”

The Malaysian election as well as seeming Saudi complicity in the corruption scandal that toppled Mr. Razak has global implications, particularly for the United States and China, global powers who see support of autocratic and/or corrupt regimes as the best guarantee to maintain stability.

It is a lesson that initially was apparent in the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

The rollback of the achievements of most of those revolts backed by autocratic leaders in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates bent on reshaping the Middle East and North Africa in their mould has contributed to the mayhem, violence and brutal repression engulfing the region.

In addition, autocratic rule has failed to squash widespread economic and social discontent. Middle Eastern states, including Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon Iran, and most recently Jordan have witnessed  protests against rising prices, cuts in public spending and corruption.

“The public dissatisfaction, bubbling up in several countries, is a reminder that even more urgent action is needed,” warned Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Elections, if held at all, more often than not fail to serve as a corrective in the Middle East and North Africa because they are engineered rather than a free and fair reflection of popular will. Elections in countries like Iraq and Lebanon serve as exceptions that confirm the rule while Iran represents a hybrid.

As a result, street protests, militancy and violence are often the only options available to those seeking change.

Against that backdrop, Malaysia stands out as an example of change that does not jeopardize stability.

It is but the latest example of Southeast Asian nations having led the way in producing relatively peaceful political transitions starting with the 1986 popular revolt in the Philippines, the 1998 toppling of Suharto in Indonesia, and Myanmar’s 2010 transition away from military dictatorship.

This is true even if Southeast Asia also demonstrates that political transition is a decades-long process that marches to the tune of Vladimir Lenin’s principle of two steps forward, one step backwards as it witnesses a backslide with the rise in the Philippines of President Rodrigo Duterte’s authoritarianism, stepped up jihadist activity, the 2014 military coup in Thailand, increasingly autocratic rule in Cambodia, the rise of conservatism and intolerance in Indonesia, and the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

If anything, Malaysia constitutes an anti-dote.

“Malaysia’s institutions proved more resilient…and descent into authoritarianism has been averted – offering a lesson not only to aspiring dictators, but to those in the United Stateswho argue that propping up corrupt leaders is in U.S. interests,” said Alex Helan, a security and anti-corruption consultant.

*

This article was also published on The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. 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 blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario,  Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa, and the forthcoming China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom

In times of war, correspondents are routinely ‘embedded’ with fighting forces in order to be able to document the latest battles up close. Since last week, America’s most respected journalists are being denied access to the ‘holding centers’ where young Latino children are being detained after being separated from parents trying to enter the US to escape poverty and gang violence.

Thus far, not one journalist either on CNN or on MSNBC, the two major national channels, have dared to denounce this government censorship, which flies in the face of one of America’s ‘most cherished values’. The closest any journalist has come to denouncing the situation has been to claim that ‘this is a national security issue’: drug dealers and child traffickers may be slipping into the country pretending to be asylum seekers. (‘National Security’ is a term that few dare to challenge, whatever the rationale…)

The frustration and apparent helplessness of legislators in the face of this highly visible problem illustrates the limits of ‘democracy’. The corridors of Capitol Hill are shown filled with demonstrators trying to convince representatives of the need to move expeditiously, as recordings of crying children are played in the background. The President trades accusations of immobilism with Congress and each congressional party accuses the other of being at the origin of some obscure legislation that supposedly dictates the abhorrent policies being followed.

Bills being mooted face two hurdles: being allowed by the leader of the House of Representatives into the floor to be discussed and voted upon, and in the affirmative, garnering enough Democratic and Republican votes to be passed, given the priorities of the two different parties, while the President refuses to act unilaterally. Action has been taken only by a few governors, who have announced with fanfare that they will not send any of their National Guard troops to assist with the complex situation at the border. However, the effect of their righteous revolt will be minimal, given the extreme militarization of local police forces across the country, as immigration activists demonstrate against the extreme heat of the Texas desert where tent cities remindful of those in which Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio gleefully held local prisoners until he was convicted (then pardoned by President Trump).

Psychiatrists and psychologists warn that as the children subjected to traumatic separations from their parents grow into adolescence, the community will bear the costs of their PTSD. In vain: Stephen Miller, the chilling young presidential advisor intent on preserving the United States as a White City Upon a Hill looking down at the brown people it has subjected for three centuries, whispers to the President that he can — and must — do this.

*

Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

Kim 10, Trump 0

June 24th, 2018 by Eric Margolis

Last week’s Economist Magazine won the day with the best-ever headline about the Trump-Kim Jong-un summit: `Kim Jong Won!’ 

That said it all.   Just out of hospital, I was in no shape to compete with the great Economist or its very witty headline writers. But after watching a week of post Singapore summit between Great White Father Trump and delinquent Kim Jong-un I must totally agree with the Economist.

What was billed as a second-coming extravaganza between the two leaders – who have been trading insults of ‘little rocket man’ and ‘dotard’ (someone who is senile) turned out to be a very expensive photo op for both publicity seekers that made much noise but produced very little – at least so far.  It seemed as if two schoolyard bullies had been forced by the principal to shake hands.

Beyond gestures, North Korea’s leader certainly came out ahead.  His objective – and those of his family predecessors for the past 60 years – was to normalize relations with the US, start trade, and end US efforts to overthrow the Marxist government in Pyongyang.

Trump’s objectives, at least initially, were to crush North Korea and the threats it could pose to the United States and its regional allies Japan and South Korea. Trump sought to set up Kim as a bogeyman, and himself as America’s savior.  Trump knew perfectly well that he could not destroy all of North Korea’s deeply buried nuclear-armed missiles, and, in spite of his huffing and puffing, had no stomach for an invasion of North Korea that could cost the US an estimated 250,000 casualties.

So Trump’s solution was more show-biz.  A much ballyhooed flight to Singapore, backslapping a delighted Kim, and a love-fest between the two chunky leaders was sold to Americans as the dawn of peace.  America’s media was quick to retail the story and burnish Trump’s credentials among the seriously credulous.  No more hiding under your school desks or in dank basements.  As Trump grandly proclaimed, Americans no longer have to fear North Korea and can sleep peacefully at night!

Why?  Korea still has all of its medium and long-ranged missiles and an estimated 40 or more nuclear warheads.  The North is developing submarines that can launch nuclear-armed missiles from underwater off America’s coasts.  For Kim, these weapons are purely defensive, designed to prevent a US attack on his nation.   But he is now a full-fledged member of the nuclear club.

Equally important, North Korea still has an estimated 14,000 170mm guns and hundreds of 300mm long-ranged rocket launchers emplaced in caves just north of the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas.  They threaten almost all of South Korea’s capital Seoul north of the Han River and some US military bases and key airfields, notably Osan.

This is a very real threat – one that is largely immune to attack from the air. I have seen these emplacements from the northern edge of the DMZ.  Kim’s big guns hold Seoul’s millions of inhabitants hostage.

There is no mention of this artillery threat in the final communiqué issued by Trump and Kim in Singapore.  But it was agreed to temporarily stop the highly provocative US/South Korean war games simulating an invasion of the North, a key demand by Kim.  This column has been calling for their end for a decade.  North Korea will seemingly halt its missile tests.

This is not the ‘denuclearization’ of North Korea that has been bandied about.  There may be a few gestures of disarmament but Kim must know that his nukes are his means of survival.  In case Kim didn’t remember the dire fate of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Trump’s new national security advisor John Bolton, a fanatic’s fanatic, cheerfully recalled the doom of Libya’s murdered Col. Khadaffi.

The Singapore summit was also a huge humiliation for America’s allies Japan and South Korea.  In Asia, preserving ‘face’ is essential.

Trump completely ignored America’s two old allies after his meeting with Kim – who routinely blasts Japan and South Korea as ‘America’s stooges.’  Instead, Trump sent his beginner Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to explain what happened in Singapore, inflicting a deep loss of face on Tokyo and Seoul.  This was a terrible insult and could spark decisions by at least Japan to proceed ahead with its covert nuclear program.  Japan can deploy nuclear weapons in 3-6 months; South Korea is not far behind.

The United States and North Korea are now on a more civilized level of behavior.  But nothing basic has been resolved.  Maybe Trump has some more concessions up his sleeve, like cutting the number of US troops in the South.  But Korea is now on the back burner as Trump wages trade wars around the globe.

Video: The National Debt Scam

June 24th, 2018 by Comprehensive Research, Inc.

Watch the video below to understand the “artificial economy”.

This was originally published on May 8, 2015.

.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The National Debt Scam

There are few bipartisan projects in Congress these days, but Republicans and Democrats have no trouble joining together to feed more money into the Pentagon’s gaping maw.

By a vote of 85-10 on Thursday morning, the Senate approved the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—technically known as the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act” because you wouldn’t vote against something named after an American hero, right? It serves as the budget for the U.S. military, which this year is receiving $716 billion, an increase of $82 billion from last year. That increase was agreed upon in March as part of an overall two-year budget deal that smashed Obama-era spending caps and boosts military spending by $165 over the next two years.

It’s not just that military spending crosses party lines, but that it smooths over nearly every political division in Washington today. Democrats have shown virtually no interest in Trump’s major policy priorities, but only seven Democrats plus Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, voted against Trump’s new nukes. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) were the only Republicans to vote against the NDAA. An attempt by Sander, Lee, and some other senators to include an amendment prohibiting the Pentagon from continuing to participate in an unauthorized war in Yemen was defeated.

The spending increase will allow the Pentagon to buy more fighter jets, to create “cyberwarfare units,” and to develop new, smaller nuclear weapons. There is, however, no Space Force. The extra $82 billion will “bring us back to a position of primacy,” Defense Secretary James Mattis said in February.

To put the Pentagon’s $82 billion funding increase in perspective, consider that Russia’s entire military budget totals only $61 billion. China, which boast the next most expensive military in the world after the United States, plans to spend about $175 billion this year.

Maybe the problem isn’t how much funding the military receives, but how the money it already gets is spent. Unfortunately, we don’t know much about that because the Pentagon has still not been subjected to a full scale audit, despite the fact that all federal agencies and departments were ordered to undergo mandatory audits in 1990. A preliminary audit of one office within the Pentagon found more than $800 million could not be located. Auditors said the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)—described as “the military’s Walmart” because it’s responsible for processing supplies and equipment—has financial management “so weak that its leaders and oversight bodies have no reliable way to track the huge sums it’s responsible for.”

Whether it’s investing in bomb-sniffing elephants, paying $8,000 for something that should cost $50, or the famous $640 toilet seat, there’s no shortage of absurd waste in the Pentagon. A Reuters probe in 2013 found “$8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out to the Pentagon since 1996 … has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China’s economic output [for 2012].”

“To give the Defense Department more money without making sure the waste is addressed is foolish and strategically unwise,” Bonnie Kristian, a fellow at Defense Priorities, wrote for Reason earlier this year.

But Congress and the White House have no such qualms about handing the Pentagon more money to burn.

The Western world never ceases to speak of its “democratic values.” In Western political theory, the way democracy works is by free speech and a free press. By speaking out, citizens and media keep the government accountable.

This liberal tradition means that there are no words or terms that cannot be used because some designated “victim group” can claim to feel offended. The inroads into free speech made by political correctness, now institutionalized in universities and the public school system, in the presstitute media, in American corporations such as Google, and in the enculturated habits of Americans, demonstrate a decline in the status of free speech. Governments have also made inroads, with the “war on terror” becoming a justification for warrantless spying, mass surveillance, and a clampdown on dissent.

The free press has declined even more dramatically than free speech. The NY Times of the Pentagon Papers disappeared during George W. Bush’s first term when the newspaper sat on the story that the Bush regime was spying without warrants. The NY Times sat on the story for a year, allowing Bush to be reelected without controversy and allowing the government time to legalize the spying on an ex post facto basis.

Today the media are a propaganda ministry engaged in the demonization of Russia and Trump and justifying the war crimes of Washington and its vassal states.

This is why there is no media uproar over the 6-year incarceration of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Wikileaks is a news organization and has not done anything that a free press has not always done. Julian Assange is a citizen of Australia and Ecuador. He is not an American and thus cannot be guilty of treason. Yet Washington is believed to have used a grand jury to concoct such a case against him.

The new president of Ecuador is not the strong and good man than his predecessor was. Under Washington’s pressure Moreno is making life in the Ecuadorian embassy as unbearable as possible for Assange in an effort to force him out into British hands. Responding to Washington’s pressure, the British government will not honor his asylum, which prevents Assange from being able to leave the embassy.

There is no presence of “democratic values” in this affair. It is a repeat of the Soviet Union’s treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty, only it is Washington, not Moscow, who is stamping on the face of freedom. (See this.)

The Australian government, also in deference to Washington, has done nothing to help Assange. Australia, like every other vassal state, puts Washington’s interest ahead of both law and the interest of citizens.

This week there were protests in Australia in support of Assange. However, Western governments are now so far removed from citizens who are today little more than subjects that it is unlikely that anything short of revolution can restore accountability to governments in the West.

“Western democracy” has become an oxymoron. This article by Mike Head shows the disdain that the Western elites have for free speech, freedom of the press, truth, and the rights of citizens.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.