Featured image: A destroyed house where 28 members of the Badran family and five neighbors were killed in a US-led coalition airstrike on August 20, 2017, Raqqa, Syria (Amnesty International)

While the Amnesty Report confirms that the US-led coalition violated “international humanitarian law”, it fails to acknowledge that ISIS-Daesh was SUPPORTED by the U.S. coalition from the very outset. 

And then President Obama ordered the conduct of “humanitarian bombings” with a view to “liberating Raqqa” from the clutch of the ISIS terrorists generously funded by America’s allies (including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states).

America’s fake counter-terrorism “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) mandate was used as a justification to wage a war of aggression against Syria. The unspoken truth is that the US is the State sponsor of ISIS-Daesh. The Islamic State is a construct of US intelligence, affiliated to Al Qaeda. 

America’s ultimate intent was to destroy, destabilize and fracture Syria as a nation State. 

The “Liberation” of  Raqqa by US led forces constitutes an extensive crime against humanity consisting in actively supporting the ISIS terrorists occupation of Raqqa, and then waging an extensive bombing campaign to “liberate” the city.

The media has presented the Liberation of Raqqa as a counter-terrorism operation rather than an illegal aggression against a sovereign country.

The logic of the US led operation directed against Raqqa is similar to that led against Mosul in Iraq. 

Below is the review of the Amnesty Report by Prof. Scott Lucas

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 5, 2018

***

Amnesty International concludes that US-led coalition forces killed hundreds of civilians in last year’s campaign to take the city of Raqqa in northern Syria from the Islamic State.

The organization issued a report on Monday based on visits to 42 sites of airstrikes and interviews with 112 civilian residents whose relatives were killed as the US-supported, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces captured the devastated city last October after a four-month offensive.

Four representative cases are detailed in which 90 civilians — 39 from a single family — were slain. Amnesty concludes,

“They are part of a wider pattern and provide a strong prima facie case that many Coalition attacks that killed and injured civilians and destroyed homes and infrastructure violated international humanitarian law.”

During the campaign, coalition forces carried out tens of thousands of airstrikes, more than 90% by American warplanes. The US also fired 30,000 artillery rounds on the city and surrounding arreas.

Donatella Rivera, a senior advisor at Amnesty, summarizes:

The Coalition’s claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb IS out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny. On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we’ve seen in decades of covering the impact of wars.

[The Islamic State’s] brutal four-year rule in Raqqa was rife with war crimes. But the violations of IS, including the use of civilians as human shields, do not relieve the Coalition of their obligations to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. What levelled the city and killed and injured so many civilians was the US-led Coalition’s repeated use of explosive weapons in populated areas where they knew civilians were trapped.

One resident, Munira Hashish, explains,

“Those who stayed died and those who tried to run away died. We couldn’t afford to pay the smugglers; we were trapped.” She and her children finally escaped through a minefield “by walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us”.

Rasha Badran and her husband lost their entire family, including their 1-year-old daughter. She recounts:

We thought the forces who came to evict Daesh [the Islamic State] would know their business and would target Daesh and leave the civilians alone. We were naïve. By the time we had realised how dangerous it had become everywhere, it was too late; we were trapped.

*

Scott Lucas is Professor of International Politics at the University of Birmingham and editor-in-chief of EA WorldView. He is a specialist in US and British foreign policy and international relations, especially the Middle East and Iran. Formerly he worked as a journalist in the US, writing for newspapers including the Guardian and The Independent and was an essayist for The New Statesman before he founded EA WorldView in November 2008.


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.

Can anything be said that doesn’t warrant an empaneled jury of twitting twats to determine the fate of an individual?  It is evident that branding, marketing and selling can only be done in a context of controlled hypocrisy.  Companies long happy to use celebrities as fronts for promoting products and the image of a television network have become obsessed with the idea of sensitivity.   

While Roseanne Barr’s tweet describing former President Barack Obama’s senior advisor Valerie Jarrett in simian terms (“Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj”) was stingingly rude, the hammer option adopted towards her by the ABC was manic.  Was the Roseanne Barr slated to return in her show meant to have been reformed, one more economical in her rattled, and rattling opinions?  

The sense among the writers and producers was to fall in line.  People were all meant to be horrified at this new creation, this new Barr.  Executive producer David Caplan claimed to be helpless before the implications of the tweet.

 “I really wasn’t sure what to do because I didn’t feel like there was really any response to it.  It was so far over the line and so loathsome that I suspected there might not be any coming back from it.”

Caplan recounted Barr during season 10 of the program.  She was found to be “reasonable with the writers.”  Despite disagreements regarding her political beliefs, she proved “reasonable to work with at that point.”

This suggests a bit of hand washing on Caplan’s part in anticipation of future employment: Barr’s tweet had nothing to do with work matters, and certainly nothing to with the scripting of the show.  Keep new freaky marginalised, isolated, for fear of being contaminated.

This stomach turning sanctimony can be found in the idea that the ABC network is magically tolerant (family values and all that), and that Barr was somehow out of step.  Take Hal Boedeker, who happily marches to a tune that is not only discordant but silly. 

In the Orlando Sentinel, the righteous Boedeker made the following observation held down by the assumptions of pure fantasy:

“Disney sends the message that it welcomes all. Barr violated the Disney philosophy with her racist tweet about former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.” 

As if it made any difference whatsoever,

“Barr also had a history of bashing others with tweets, and she trafficked in conspiracy theories.”

What makes such mind addled assessments even more unearthly is the remark that Barr’s conspiracy theories do not cut it in the world of fantasy. (What runs for fantastic these days?)  “Disney deals in fairy tales, not conspiracy theories.”  A good reading of the text, subtext and inner meaning of many a fairy tale repudiates such a view.  In-between readers such as academics keen to secure their next grant constitute, it could be said, a conspiracy of interpretation, finding a spectral hook upon which to hang upon the next questionable interpretation.

Image on the right: Valerie Jarrett and Roseanne Barr 

Image result for Valerie Jarrett

True to corporate form, the production vultures at the ABC are trying to find ways to move beyond RB for what is enthusiastically being proclaimed a salvation.  Spin-offs are being sought, though they must be emphatic on one point: the absence of the protagonist that made it to begin with.  In the manner that resembles something of a theft, Barr, according to The Hollywood Reporter, “would not be able to financially benefit from any new incarnation of the series.” (Legal minds, ready yourselves.)  

The point about Barr is that she never changed, which might well be the problem.  To understand the market and the nature of one’s employer is to understand how hypocrisies and cant might change at any given moment in time.  The fury directed against her is the misplaced anger of the trend follower with the attention span of a light lured moth. 

Treating Barr in such a manner is also bound to encourage others to come out with their scything swipes.  An example is provided by Jonathan S. Tobin in The National Review, who has asked for “an amnesty for speech offenses.” If Barr can be sent to the television’s salt mines for a racist tweet “why shouldn’t Samantha Bee lose hers for a presumably scripted line on her show in which she called Ivanka Trump a cunt and implied that she could get her father to change her mind about an issue by wearing something tight and low cut?”

Ironically enough, in the age of Trump, where the ad hominem remark has been given a whole new lease of life, becoming total, normal and unstoppable, mechanisms of control and punishment are finding their bearings.  Trust broadcasting to be one of them in their righteous corrections.

Those familiar enough with Barr would have taken her comment as deserving of a chastising, disturbed rebuke, a point she would have been more than capable of accepting.  But debate before the lynch mob is nigh impossible.  The noose speaks volumes, and expression can gradually slide into a dull, controlled oblivion.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twats and Tweets: Roseanne Barr and the Issue of Proportion
  • Tags:

On June 3, Syrian government forces repelled an ISIS attack on their positions east of the town of Hasrat in southeastern Deir Ezzor. According to reports, ISIS used small boats to cross the Euphrates to its western bank and then carried out the attack.

Taking into account the fact that the terrorists had come from the Euphrates bank controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), some pro-Damascus sources once again accused the US-led coalition of encouraging ISIS activity against pro-government forces in eastern Syria.

At the same time local sources revealed that the SDF, i.e. Kurdish YPG/YPJ militias dominating the group, and the Syrian government have reached an oil sharing agreement over the Omar oil field.

According to Turkey’s state-run news agency Anadolu, the YPG will give 100 barrels of oil from the field to the Syrian government in return for 75 barrels of fuel. The Omar oil fields is one of the largest oil fields in Syria. The SDF captured it in October 2017.

On June 2, reports appeared that the Syrian Army and Iranian-backed militias are preparing to launch a military operation in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert against ISIS. During the last two months, the Syrian army launched two attacks against ISIS in the desert. However, they were limited because pro-government forces were dealing with militants on other fronts, mainly around the city of Damascus. Now, the Syrian military has more resources to contribute to securing the desert.

Some sources linked these developments with an alleged agreement reached by the key powers influencing the conflict. Under this agreement Iran will allegedly withdraw its forces from southern Syria. In turn, the Syrian army will re-establish control over the border with Jordan and a contact line with Israeli forces.

However, Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that there will be no agreement until the US-led coalition is occupying the area of At Tanf. So even if the aforementioned agreement is finalized, its implementation is still a big question.

*

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

Puerto Rico is America’s Okinawa, Japan’s poorest prefecture – the rights, needs and welfare of people on both islands largely ignored.

Okinawans are harmed by America’s presence, including rapes, murders, and other crimes committed by US military personnel, unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental contamination, and use of valued public land for imperial purposes – hostile to regional peace and stability.

Puerto Rico is a virtual US colony, exploited by America since 1898, its people, governor and other officials powerless – the island ruled and exploited by Washington.

Islanders have no control over their lives, welfare and destiny, no say over foreign relations, commerce, trade, air space, land and offshore waters, immigration and emigration, nationality and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service, US bases on its territory, constitutionality of its laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties, radio and television, communications, agriculture, natural resources and more.

For 120 years, Puerto Ricans have been victimized by US imperial rapaciousness, transforming the island into wasteland of high unemployment, poverty, deprivation, and human misery – before Hurricane Maria struck last September, devastating Puerto Rico and its people.

They lack enfranchisement on the mainland – paying federal taxes, getting back pathetically little in return.

They suffer from gross mismanagement, political greed, widespread corruption, deplorable social services, and monied interests exploiting them, enforced by police state harshness.

Hurricane Maria was Puerto Rico’s worst ever natural disaster, causing humanitarian crisis conditions – the island a long way from recovery, rebuilding painfully slow, many islanders lacking basic services, including rural areas and elsewhere without electricity and clean water.

Hundreds of thousands of people left the island for America. Nearly 300,000 are in Florida. Many never received federal aid. Others got pathetically little short-term, expired in most cases, desperate people ending up virtually homeless.

According to Trump regime disinformation, Hurricane Maria only caused 64 deaths, a disgraceful Big Lie, covering up a human catastrophe.

A new Harvard University study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported an estimated 5,000 deaths – 70-fold higher than the fabricated official number, more than double Hurricane Katrina’s 1,833 deaths, also likely under-countered.

The leading cause of mortality in Puerto Rico was from “inability to access medications…and need for respiratory equipment requiring electricity,” reported the Harvard study, adding:

“(M)any households also reported problems with closed medical facilities…or absent doctors…In the most remote category, (many) households (couldn’t) reach 911 services by telephone.”

Basic services were lacking for months, including medical care, electricity, potable water, adequate food, shelter for many, and ability to communicate by phone.

Federal and island government indifference to essential human needs bear most responsibility for vital help left unaddressed. What was provided was woefully inadequate.

Eight months after Hurricane Maria, thousands of islanders still lack electricity, proper healthcare, and other vital services, the death toll likely rising, possibly much higher than Harvard’s 5,000 figure.

Washington spends trillions of dollars on militarism and warmaking, social justice on the chopping block for elimination to feed it.

America’s agenda reflects imperial viciousness and neoliberal harshness triumphing over governance of, by, and all its people, not just its privileged few.

The plight of long-suffering Puerto Ricans is Exhibit A.

*

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

We have gone through, for the last three months, unusual experiences.

We could admire the humanism in sports; we were touched by the beauty, the elegance and the professionalism of North Korean singers and dancers.

We saw, through the Kim-Moon summit and the North-South exchange of musical groups, that the North-South blood tie was stronger than the North-South regime divide. 

We were hoping with all our mind and heart for the closing of the last pages of the Cold War. But we realized that the Pyongyang Wall was pretty high. 

We pray that the Singapore summit will make the Pyongyang Wall crumble, once and for all, as did the Berlin Wall.

We have been, for the last three month, hearing and reading, in connection with the nuclear issues, about governments, political leaders, diplomats and different events. 

But, we seldom hear or read about the people who have been affected in different ways by the nuclear crisis.

Well, in this paper, I will discuss about how the South Korean people have been affected by the nuclear crisis.

To better understand the impact of the nuclear crisis on South Korea and its people, it is better to examine its internal political history.

In South Korea, there are two distinct groups in connection with the nuclear crisis. The one which has benefitted from the nuclear crisis is the conservative government and its supporters. The other one is the South Korean people for whom the nuclear crisis and North-South conflict were a heavy burden.

The principal negative impact of the nuclear crisis on the South Korean people includes the retreat of democracy, the increased Korea risk hurting foreign direct investments and the destruction of the groundwork of reunification.

My argument is that these heavy cost incurred by the South Korean People is attributable, mainly, to the dictatorship of the conservative government, which was facilitated by the Korean nuclear crisis and North-South tension.

On the other hand, as far as the conservative government and its supporters are concerned, the nuclear crisis has been very beneficial.

There are two reasons for this.

First, the nuclear crisis of North Korea has allowed the conservative government to scare the voters with frequent fabricated threats from the North and to get the votes in its favour. It has made itself elected many times owing to this unethical tactic.

Second, the nuclear crisis has given the conservative government ample opportunities to enrich, through illegal kickbacks, bribes and other illegal means, those individuals and the institutions involved in the production and the transactions of weapons.

Consequently, the denuclearization is a losing game as far as the conservative government and its supporters are concerned; they may even wish the Trump-Kim summit not to be successful.

To see this, we have to learn a few things from the Korean political history of the post-Pacific War era.

We will see how the conservative government has exploited the North-South conflict for its political ambition and financial greed.

When Korea was liberated from the yoke of Japanese colonialism in 1945, a conservative democratic government was established in the South under President, Syngman Rhee and a communist government, in the North under President, Kim Il-sung.

Thus, from the beginning of the post-Pacific War era, Korea was divided along the line of ideology. This was bad enough, but what was even worse was the division along the line of pro-Japan and anti-Japan positions. 

The South Korean government was formed essentially by those who served the Japanese during the colonial era and who participated in the torturing of the Korean patriots and in many other crimes against Koreans, while the North Korean government was established by those who fought the Japanese armed forces.

In this way, the Korean peninsula was divided into pro-Japan democratic conservative group in the South and communist anti-Japan group in the North.

This double-line division of the Korean peninsula has created mutual mistrust, animosity and hostility. Under this situation, the conservative South Korean government and its supporters have developed “anti-North Korea culture” in which North Korea was demonized. North Korea was described as the eternal enemy of South Korea and a source of great danger.

Therefore, in the eyes of the conservative government, those who were sympathiser of North Korea were also enemies of South Korea, or more precisely, the enemy of the conservative government and its supporters.

The anti-North Korea culture made it easy for the conservative government to label all those who criticized it as “sympathizers of North Korea” and to punish them harshly in the name of the National Security Act. 

All those who criticized the conservative government or who were not friendly to it were categorized as “Red”. 

The “Red-Culture”, called in Korean language (Palgaing-ie-moon-hwa) emerged. Under the Red-Culture, even if you are pure democrat, you are a “Palgaing-ie”, if you are not with the conservative government.

Under this situation, it was easy to impose dictatorship. In fact, all the conservative governments since 1948 were ruled by dictators.

President Syngman Rhee (1948-1960) had the most aggressive anti-North Korea attitude. He accused more than two hundred thousand civilians for being “Red” and killed them all in areas of Jeju, Yosu and Soonchon. 

His government was one of the most corrupted governments and it ruled the country through the police dictatorship. 

On April 19th, 1960, more than sixty thousand students revolted and chased Rhee out of Korea. He escaped on board of an American CIA plane.

We call this student revolt as Revolution-4.19 (Sa-il-goo-hyung-myung)

The next brutal government was that of General Park Chung-hee who ruled from 1962 to 1979 through military-CIA dictatorship. To silence voices of criticism and objection, he used innocent citizens to produce false North Korean spies. 

Millions of families which had nothing to do with North Korea were the target of police harassment for the simple reason of knowing somebody who had liberal ideology. 

There were many who killed themselves by burning, because, in the absence of freedom of speech, it was perhaps only way of accusing injustice and violation of human rights. 

From October 16 to 20 of 1979, more than fifty thousand students in Busan and Masan (BU-MA) areas revolted against electoral fraud committed by General Park and this is known as Resistance-BU-MA (Bu-ma-hang- jaing).

General Park was assassinated by his CIA director, Kim Jae-kyu, on October 26, 1979.

The conservative government following Park Chung-hee’s was that of General Chun Doo-hwan who ruled from 1979 to 1987. He was as brutal, if not more, as General Park. 

His most subhuman crime was the massacre of Kwang-ju citizens on the 18th of May, 1980. 

About nine hundred were killed by the Korea army who used even helicopters to shoot down the citizens of all ages; more than one thousand were injured. 

It started by a peaceful demonstration against injustice and violation of human rights, but General Chun wanted to destroy the very roots of complaints against him and falsely accused the citizens as soldiers from North Korea.

This incident is called Kwang-ju Fight for Democratization-5.18 (Oh-il-pal- kwang-ju-min-ju-hwa-un-dong).

General Chun was tried and condemned to death but pardoned by President Kim Dae-jung. He was also accused for embezzling several hundred millions of US dollars.

The dictatorship of the conservative government had continued until June, 1987 when far more than one million citizens took the street to stop the system of indirect election of president and amend the constitution allowing direct presidential election.

This huge demonstration is called the June Resistence (Yu-wol-hang-jaing).

Chun was succeeded by another general, Rho Tae-woo (1987-1993) who continued military rule. He was condemned and imprisoned for the embezzlement of millions of dollars and corruption.

After the five-year rule of the government of Kim Yong-sam (1993-1998) during which the military domination became less visible, the two liberal progressive governments took power.

Ten years of liberal progressive government of Kim Dae-jung (1998-2003) and Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008) was a period of peace and North-South multi-dimensional cooperation. 

And democracy was restored. 

But, the restoration of democracy and inter-Korea peace was broken when President Lee Myong-bak took power in 2008. 

He ended all inter-Korea contacts in 2010 by virtue of a decree of May 24 of 2010, called Policy Measure-5.24 (Oh-ie-sa-jo-chi). 

This Policy Measure prohibited North Korean ships from using South Korean harbours, cut off all North-South trade, prohibited South Korean citizens from traveling to North; it made illegal South Korean investments in North Korea. In addition, it stopped all aids to North Korea. 

In short, the Policy Measure-5.24 meant a complete cessation of North-South dialogues and cooperation.

The end result of this Policy Measure was the intensification of the North-South tension, which inevitably facilitated the conservative government’s control of media and political movement of the liberal progressive group. 

Lee Myung-bak ruled through the dictatorship of CIA, the police and even military intelligence service.

Lee Myong-bak is now in prison and accused of the manipulation of social media for his presidential election, embezzlement of millions of dollars, abuse of power and transaction of influences and several other crimes of corruption.

His successor, Mme Park Geun-hye (2013-2017), daughter of General, Park Chung-hee, took power in 2013. She repeated what Lee Myung-bak had done, may be even more.

She made a black list of ten thousand artists, filmmakers, actors, journalists and civil movement leaders to silence their voice of criticism. 

She has embezzled a huge amount of money in complicity with her friend Choi Sun-sil; she mobilized the whole government agencies of power for her personal greed and ambitions.

She is now in prison to serve 24 years of imprisonment.

Thus, South Korea has had six conservative presidents. Of these six, one was chased away by students, one was assassinated by his CIA director, four are or were imprisoned for abuse of power, embezzlement of public funds and violation of human rights.

The Korean people have, under these politicians, endured the 55-year dictatorship; they suffered from fear and anguish produced by the brutality of authorities; they were fed up with the never – ending corruption of high-placed people.

But, they did fight back; for seven months from 2016 to 2017, 17 million people of all ages, all regions and all sectors of the society took the sub-zero cold streets of Kwanghwah-Moon of Seoul and elsewhere in the country.

And they produced the miracle of the Candle-Light Revolution (Chop-pool- hyung-myung).

The Candle-Light Revolution impeached Park Guen-hye and elected, as President, one of the most honest, the most competent and the most loving men in the modern history of Korea.

His name is Moon Jae-in who will lead the destiny of Koreans toward the society of security, justice, equality and prosperity. More than 80% of South Koreans have faith in him.

With Moon Jae-in, the North-South tension is attenuated and the democracy is restored again after 55-year dictatorship of all sorts committed by the conservative government

The second type of cost imposed on South Korea was the increase in Korea risk preventing a normal inflow of foreign direct investments (FDI). South Korea shows one of the lowest FDI ratios among the OECD countries. In 2017, the ratio of inflow FDI stock to GDP was 12.0 % as against 52.0% for OECD countries.

Finally, another heavy cost was the total destruction – by Lee Mung-bak and Park Gun-hye – of the groundwork of Korean reunification carefully established by the two liberal progressive governments of Kim Dae-jung and Rho Moo-hyun

In short, the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula has imposed heavy cost on South Korea and its people. This cost includes, as seen above, the retreat of democracy, the destruction of the groundwork of the country’s reunification and negative impact on its economy. 

To conclude, if the Singapore Summit is successful so that denuclearisation takes place, it will be a great blessing for South Koreans. 

They will be able to further develop true democracy, advance toward the reunification of the Korean peninsula, a new round of the rapid economic development.

*

Professor Joseph H. Chung is currently associated professor of economics and co-director of the Observatory of East Asia (OAE) of the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University-Montreal Campus (UQAM). He is a Research Associate frequent of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

I would like to let Global Research readers know that there is fiction out there written for them. In a world full of books, movies and TV that perpetuates the myths, we normally have to dumb down what we know and overlook political statements in fiction. That can lead some informed people to lose interest in novels, but I hope to bring it back with the psychological suspense series.”

In this riveting interview with Author, UCLA writing instructor, and manuscript editor Tantra Bensko, I had the opportunity to ask a few questions about her exciting new fiction psychological suspense thriller series Agents of the Nevermind. The first two novels Glossolalia –which has won a gold medal in Intrigue from Readers Favorite Awards and Remember to Recycle, have been published and are available for purchase on Amazon, book III Encore: A Hypnotic Abduction, which takes place in England, and will be out in August.

The Agents of the Nevermind are masters of illusion, psy-op, false flag, theatrical news making the public support the military agendas. Ultimately, that scheme is about demonizing and taking down people like Assad, who is a huge hero of mine. As this is not a new or localized phenomenon, however, and because I’m an outsider, I leave the location vague in the fiction.

Tantra (image on the right) an author with a myriad of literary masterpieces to her name shares with Global Research contributor and independent journalist Sarah Abed where she draws her creative energy and inspiration from. As well as how she uses her talent to dismantle popular misconceptions and tackle matters that are of particular interest to informed readers.

All the novels in the series include the media working with intelligence agencies currently without referencing actual details of today’s world. But the accurate history of social engineering is referenced throughout the series in a wide variety of examples including the history of MK ULTRA mind-control and devious occult figures with military agendas that influenced people to believe mind-boggling things. The historical references in the books up until around 1990 are all accurate. But after that year, the Alternate History veers off slightly when the Agents of the Nevermind were amalgamated from other intelligence agencies in the US and UK. That gives me the chance to talk about the effects of propaganda in the United States in an interesting, entertaining way that provides fiction for people in the know about countries like Syria to enjoy without the action literally describing the details of life in the trenches. The heroes in the novels include indie journalists who expose social engineering”.

*

Sarah Abed (SA):  As a suspense/psychological thriller author, where do you draw your inspiration from?

Tantra Bensko (TB): Honestly, journalists like yourself, Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett, Caitlin Johnstone and James Corbett are a source of inspiration and information. In The Agents of the Nevermind series in particular, it’s about the heroism of recognizing and exposing social engineering. People such as yourself and others involved with Global Research, including loyal readers, inspire the books. In turn, I hope to inspire the readers of the novels to keep up the good work of sharing links to well-researched factual articles on social media and doing all the other little things to promote awareness of how the mass media is a propaganda tool.

Remember to Recycle: Psychological Suspense (The Agents of the Nevermind Book 2) by [Bensko, Tantra]

One of the characters in the novels is a well-known indie video personality named Brandon who functions as a way for whistleblowers to get the word out about the actual practices of the government and military that are covered up by traditional media. Brandon doesn’t work alone, because ordinary citizens as well as reformed Agents pass him information. The entire network is required to counter the way the Agent-controlled news stations try to shut him down. I want my readers to have the same pumped feeling I had when leaving the theater after Kill the Messenger, about the journalist Gary Webb.

Readers who are familiar with the horrors such as perpetrated by the White Helmets in Syria, or the journalists demonizing Putin, for example, need entertainment like everyone else does, but what we’re offered is instead a blockbuster movie that perpetuates the illusion that the White Helmets are entirely a neutral, unarmed spontaneously formed do-gooder group of sweethearts.

How frustrating that we don’t have choices of movies and books that counter those kinds of lies. So, I provide that with The Agents of the Nevermind. I really hope your readers will embrace these books that I’ve spent so many years writing as a kind of love letter to them.

Book II is directly inspired by the White Helmet hoax and the similar group in the book are called The Rescuers and the foreign country remains unnamed. But people in the know will recognize that it is about characters in the United States affected by what’s going on in Syria. Still, it’s about more than one country or event; it’s about the ongoing pattern of intervention under the pretense of humanitarian aid and feigned shock over what foreign rulers are supposedly doing.

SA: How do world events shape your stories? What role do they play in how you formulate your characters or story plot? 

TB: World events compel me to write the novels in reaction to my compassion for the victims and my desire for the machinations of the perpetrators to become clear to readers. Since suspense and thriller novels need formidable antagonists who put the protagonists in grave danger, readers will agonize through the plots while their poor bodies pump adrenalin. Ultimately, readers’ bodies benefit by the end of the narrative by vicariously experiencing all the problems being overcome. But in the process, it’s a rough ride. I prefer to give them something truly meaningful to concerns themselves over.

In a world full of books, movies, and TV that perpetuates the myths, we normally have to dumb down what we know and overlook political statements in fiction. That can lead some informed people to lose interest in novels, but I hope to bring it back with the psychological suspense series. I call the books Thrills for Thinkers.

SA: Do spirituality, morals, ethics, or your own personal beliefs and political views tie into your writing? If so how?

TB: Psychological suspense stories go beyond simple black and white judgement. I’ve learned deeper compassionate toward anti-hero agents conducting psy-ops and people who cheat on tests, for example, so that I could write about them. I also encourage compassion for them in readers following the journey in which the flawed protagonists make positive changes.

Some spiritual experiences such as studying the interpersonal dynamics of the aura by doing aura viewing experiments, and spiraling energy between my body and a lover’s, inform some of the books, such as in Encore. In that one, the avant-garde performance troupe’s hypnotist gets them to work with auras to make the shows better and he also teaches a character how to meditatively circulate sensual energy.

But I keep esoteric subjects like that based on experience more than promoting any particular religious belief. I reference historical figures like John Dee and Edward Kelley, Madame Blavatsky and Nicholas Roerig, and Aleister Crowley to show the juncture between intelligence agents and the supposed occult throughout history.

I’m not aligned with any political party in the US, so I have an easy time being neutral with that in the work, which I think is a good idea, to avoid polarizing any more than necessary. But I’ll tell you, the presidential candidate who I was gung ho about was the brave and insightful Cynthia McKinney and she wrote a blurb for one of the books I may be able to afford to release one day if enough people buy the current books.

SA: What do you want your readers to learn or better understand by reading your books?

TB: I’d like for people who aren’t familiar with common corrupt practices like false flags, media theater, sexual bribery and blackmail, coups and proxy wars to see realistic examples of how the logistics. Many of my readers write reviews saying that they gained new insight into what they hear on the news. They can now conceive of how feasible it is that news anchors cover up something more complicated and sinister.

For example, Glossolalia arises from MKULTRA mind control programs, honeypots, assassins, evangelical involvement in the military and proxy wars. Remember to Recycle responds to the White Helmets trying to take down Assad, energy vampirism parties, organ harvesting and funding black ops through pornography. Encore focuses on intelligence agents tricking people by manipulating mythology and occult beliefs, riling up and dividing the populace, manipulating the market, and pandering to elite desires for immortality.

But ultimately, they’re big-hearted upbeat books. I want readers to understand the motives of not only the crooks and people forced and tricked into corruption their whole lives but also the impetus behind the heroic acts of bravery pulling away the veils of illusion. And I want them to understand themselves, because fiction is proven to do that. Not just in terms of moral behavior in a complex world but in more nuanced ways, fun ways, ways of love and art and friendship and family and appreciation for this wonderful gift we’re given.

I write fiction for people to enjoy, so avoid making readers feel like they’re being instructed or preached to with some sort of dull, predictable stereotypical war story. The backdrop of the series is reality, so ultimately, my hope is that relaxing into reading books about the real world ends up being relaxing. Because the readers don’t have to wear themselves out with cognitive dissonance and suspension of disbelief that is necessary with most Thrillers where the bad guys are the Russians and the good guys are the soldiers murdering them.

The plots and characters are not what one would expect, because they’re inventive as I can make them. I want readers to learn that they can have a good time that evening while they enjoy the books.

SA: How has writing changed you as an individual?

TB: You ask great questions, Sarah, thank you. I’ve been writing all my life, and it keeps me pushing myself to my limits; it’s not at all easy to do. I had a couple hundred short stories in magazines and each time I felt a kinship with the editors who chose my work. Because I’m writing for others, not myself, it prompts me to learn to understand readers better. It’s given me the occasion to meet lots of authors in person and online and every person we really get to know changes us a little.

Scientific studies show we are physiologically changed for a long time by reading fiction even for a short while. I think writers must be even more transformed by the characters than the readers are. So, I’ve been continually changed in a myriad of ways.

And I feel part of a wonderful community of people who tell me their reactions to my novels and review them on Amazon, Goodreads, blogs and review sites. I think I feel less isolated than I would without the writing, though it keeps me alone at home working all day most of the time.

Tantra’s books can purchased on Amazon. Her Agents of the Nevermind Minds page has links to journalists who dispel the kind of “real world” propaganda that informs her fiction. It will be exciting to see what new thrillers she has in store for us in the upcoming days.

*

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributes to various radio shows, news publications, and forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected]. Her articles can also be seen at The Rabbit Hole. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Thanks to the contributions of our readers, we have been able to maintain complete independence. You can help Global Research make information available to the widest possible readership.  

We ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research in our battle against mainstream media disinformation.

.

*     *     *

Israel Bombs Gaza Hours After Funeral of Murdered 21-year-old Paramedic

By Morning Star, June 04, 2018

Israeli warplanes blitzed the Gaza Strip today as the country continued to punish Palestinians for daring to hold peaceful demonstrations near the fence that seals off the territory.

Israeli Oncologists’ Letter: Let Gaza Cancer Patients Out!

By Physicians For Human Rights In Israel, June 04, 2018

The physicians have decided to act given the growing difficulties they have been experiencing over the past year in providing continuous treatment to cancer patients arriving at their clinics from the Gaza Strip. This is due to the tightening of the Israeli exit permit policy with regard to Gazan cancer patients. According to data provided by Physicians for Human Rights, over the past year medical treatment has been significantly delayed for at least 45 women cancer patients from Gaza.

Which Is the Greater Threat? Non-Nuclear Iran or Israeli F-35s and Their Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction?

By Hans Stehling, June 04, 2018

Whilst non-nuclear Iran is subject to inspection by UN Inspectors from the IAEA, nuclear-armed Israel is completely free to increase its weapons of mass destruction, ad infinitum. That includes nuclear, chemical and biological WMD.

Israel’s Intensive Cover-up of Crimes against Palestinians, Complicity of Western Media

By Rima Najjar, June 04, 2018

The world has never witnessed a braver, more steadfast and resolute people than the en-caged Palestinians of Gaza — and that goes for every man, woman and child, from Hamas down, enduring unspeakable conditions and saying, in a voice that should be familiar to most Americans, give me liberty or give me death.

While Palestinian Paramedic Razan Lost Her Life, US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley “Lost Her Humanity”

By Prof. Kamel Hawwash, June 04, 2018

Contrast the humane and selfless acts of 21-year-old Razan, with limited opportunities to bring peace and justice to her people, with the shameful and brazen attempts in the Security Council by US Ambassador Nikki Haley to deny another people, Razan’s people, protection from Israeli terror.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The UN Is Silent Amid Israeli Aggression in Gaza; Is It a Defunct Agency?

Every spring, as the calendar ticks off the two month span between April 4th (the assassination anniversary date of anti-war, anti-racist, anti-poverty activist Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr) and June 5th (the assassination anniversary date of anti-war  and pro-racial equality presidential candidate Senator Robert F. Kennedy), many progressive, anti-war, anti-racism, non-violent activists around the world such as myself have spent a lot of time thinking about how different America and the world might have been if the political, military and economic powers that were behind the Vietnam War and in charge of those two assassinations had decided instead to allow the will of the people – rather than the use of cowardly firearms – to decide America’s future.

1968, the Year When Everything Happened

1968 is sometimes referred to as the “year when everything happened”. 

  1. The Vietnam War intensified in the Battle of Khe Sanh (starting on January 21), the Tet Offensive (January 31), the Battle for Hue City (January 31) and the My Lai Massacre (March 16); 
  2. The anti-Vietnam War protests intensified in the US, resulting in Reactionary Police Brutality; 
  3. The Abdication of Lyndon Johnson (March 30); 
  4. The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr (April 4) with over 100 American cities burning in response; 
  5. The Columbia University student occupations of campus buildings (April 23); 
  6. The Broadway Play Hair (April 29) started the Age of Aquarius; 
  7. The Catonsville 9  draft card burnings (May 17); 
  8. Bobby Kennedy’s Assassination (June 5);
  9. The Chicago Democratic Convention (August 28) with rampant police brutality;
  10. Richard Nixon’s divisive Southern Strategy campaign; 
  11. The segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace’s presidential run for president, winning 13% of the national vote; 
  12. The Mexico Olympics and the famous Black Power Salute (October 16); 
  13. Black athletes kneeling during the national anthem at 1968 NFL games to protest police brutality and racial discrimination; 
  14. “National Burn Your Draft Card Day” (November 14); and 
  15. etc, etc.

1968 is also the year that hastened the destruction of true representative democracy in America and the beginning of a quasi-police state/Deep State establishment in its place. The unwelcome truths about Bobby Kennedy’s shooting on June 5, 1968 (by an assassin or assassins other than Sirhan Sirhan (see the irrefutable evidence further below) and his death on June 6, 1968 has been annually over-shadowed by the commemoration of the World War II anniversary of D-day, June 6, 1944. And every year teachable moments are lost.

Bobby Kennedy’s political assassination had occurred just 3 months before the infamous police state repression and beatings of non-violent protestors at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago that brutalized so many young student anti-Vietnam war protestors. The police brutality ordered by Chicago mayor Richard Daley revealed that police power politics was alive and well in both political parties. It doomed the chances of Democrat Hubert Humphrey to keep the war-mongers Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger out of the White House. 

Related image

Shortly after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, singer-song-writer Richard Holler was inspired to write the classic song, “Abraham, Martin and John”. See the lyrics further below.

Holler was inspired to write the song after the assassination of newly anti-war, Presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy. Holler saw the similarities between the assassinations of liberal/progressive political figures such as President Abraham Lincoln (1865), President John F. Kennedy (1963), Martin Luther King, Jr and Bobby Kennedy (both in 1968). 

Holler could just as well have written verses for other American justice-seeking activists such as Malcolm X, John Lennon and Democratic Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone, each of whom were progressive agitators, thinkers and doers who saw injustice and violence and then felt compelled to act upon their deeply-felt need to end the violence of racism, sexism, economic oppression/exploitation, police state repression, male supremacy and militarism. 

Each one was assassinated before they could achieve what they had so courageously tried to accomplish. Each died before their time at the hands of a well-disguised group of conspirators who would meet the definition of enemies of the state that the targeted individuals were trying to preserve. 

Here is a more complete list of dates of the assassinations and the relatively youthful ages of the victims:

  • Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on 4/15/1865 at age 56;
  • John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 11/22/1963 at age 46 by conspiratorial deep state assailants and NOT by the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald; The latest and best book on the subject is titled “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Mattersby James Douglass. James Fetzer’s book on the assassination of JFK is “Murder in Dealey Plaza  which totally debunks the single shooter theory (and therefore proves that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK) – click here for a review.
  • Martin Luther King was assassinated on 4/4/1968 at age 39 by deep state assailants and NOT by the patsy James Earl Ray; (for unassailable proof that Ray was a patsy, see this and also read “An Act of State” by attorney William Pepper, who is currently researching the Sirhan Sirhan case)
  • Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on 6/5/1968 at age 43 by deep state assailants and NOT by the patsy Sirhan Sirhan; (For a review of the most recent book on the subject, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Crime, Conspiracy and Cover-Up – A New Investigation”, see this.
  • Malcolm X was assassinated on 2/21/1965 at age 39;
  • John Lennon was assassinated on 12/8/1980 at age 40;
  • Paul Wellstone was assassinated on 10/25/2002 at age 58. (for details google “Wellstone: They Killed Him” or see this)
  • It should also be noted that the ancient progressive, non-violent, anti-sexist, anti-militarist, anti-poverty, peace and justice advocate Jesus of Nazareth was assassinated by his reactionary/conservative political and religious enemies at age 33.

Here are the lyrics to “Abraham, Martin and John”:

By Richard Holler

Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone

Has anybody here seen my old friend John?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone

Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone

Didn’t you love the things that they stood for?
Didn’t they try to find some good for you and me?
And we’ll be free
Someday soon, it’s gonna be
One day

Has anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
I thought I saw him walkin’
Up over the hill
With Abraham, Martin and John.

Here is a recent article about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination by Edward Curtin. It was published on Global Research last week.

*

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns are archived at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; or at

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

As the Forever AUMF 2018 (SJRes 59) (Authority for the Use of Military Force) continues to await action by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one can only imagine the extent of the behind-the-scene efforts underway to sway those few wavering Senators who may be reluctant to go down in American history as voting to eliminate Congress’ sole, inviolate Constitutional authority ‘to declare war’. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

The law would remove Congress from its statutory authority as it transfers “uninterrupted” authority on “the use of all necessary and appropriate force” to one individual, allowing the President of the United States to pursue the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and other ‘associated forces” including a proverbial too little-too late report to Congress 48 hours after the use of military force in a “new foreign country,” presumably in the Middle East (other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen or Libya). 

In addition to pressure within the Committee itself, it can be expected that those who will benefit most from a Forever State of War are currently pounding the Senate’s marble halls, perhaps even stalking members of the Committee as lobbyists from the MIC, AIPAC and other enthusiasts for war, will do whatever it takes to bring adoption of the AUMF to a favorable committee vote.

Since more than half the Committee, fourteen of its twenty one members received a grand total of $3,397,755 from pro-Israel PAC’s as identified by the Center for Responsive Politics, whenever and if ever the final vote comes, it will be positively titillating to compare the vote and the money.    

In an interesting reversal of common legislative procedure, the House of Representatives has, as yet, no pending AUMF comparable to the Foreign Relations Committee version while the Senate Committee appears eager to act; perhaps at the behest of one of those aforementioned aficionados of war.  If we assume that the Senate Committee adopts the AUMF with the next logical step being a vote by the full Senate, will the Senate create an awkward legislative conundrum without a comparable Forever AUMF 2018 being on a legislative track in the House?  

One factor in pushing for speedy AUMF approval might be that there is some new military escapade about to unfold with the need for an unwieldy Constitutionally mandated Congressional debate and vote too onerous, requiring too much effort and consuming a colossal amount of time whereas the Section 8 clause might better inform the American public whether their tax dollars are being efficiently used to improve their lives or might even threaten a halt to the steady drumbeat of war.   

Perhaps the delay may be attributed to ongoing negotiations of the finer points in an attempt to create a more perfect air-tight vehicle.  Whether there is a sunshine date or some i’s are not dotted or t’s not crossed makes little real difference in the final outcome since the ultimate goal is to allow war to go forward without meaningful Congressional participation while failing to provide the pesky public with information about why their sons and daughters are losing their limbs or lives in some far-away country that is no threat to our national security.

It is difficult to recognize a more ill-considered, reactionary vote of enormous global consequences as adoption of a Forever AUMF which will surely hasten the Final Chapter of the American Empire.  

As if the Constitutional violations are not sufficient reason for opposition and while Congress has been less than attentive to its Section 8 duties, a functioning AUMF will not only deny a full and thorough public Congressional debate and roll call vote on the merits of military action but will prevent creation of a historic Congressional record, a journal of which began in 1789 as necessary to providing a formal documentation of all official parliamentary proceedings essential to any operative democracy.

In mid April when the AUMF 2018 draft was introduced, retiring Committee Chair Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn) was optimistic that the AUMF would be approved within a few weeks indicating that a potential Senate floor vote depends on the strength of AUMF support within the Committee.   Corker suggested that a wide margin in favor would facilitate Senate floor passage which makes it curious that approval appears to have stalled and brings us back to question why the haste for rapid adoption of a new AUMF.

During the May 24th Committee hearing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va) who was HRC’s running mate in 2016, serves on the Senate Armed Service Committee and is a driving force in favor of the AUMF, referred to adoption as little more than a ‘necessary update’ repealing AUMF 2001 and AUMF 2003. 

Kaine, who apparently sees no contradiction with an active-service son in the Marines and adoption of the Forever AUMF, stated that there is ‘near unity” on the Committee regarding a bi-partisan effort, military engagement against ISIS and the desire to do a ‘good job,’ none of which should be confused with real-time support for adoption of the AUMF. 

While Kaine and other members of the Committee may be untroubled by the discomfort of a contradictory, cognitive dissonance belief system as necessary qualities in order to function as a Senator, the US has become the most violent country on the planet as its legislative representatives exhibit the lack of any functioning global consciousness. 

*

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.

The counterattack on those, including Senator Robert Kennedy’s children, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, claiming that Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving at least a second gunman, has commenced.  The Boston Globe, the traditional hometown newspaper of the Kennedy family, published a clearly misleading piece on May 31, 2018 by Nik DeCosta-Klipa, with the curiously long and loaded title “Bobby Kennedy’s son thinks he was killed by a second shooter. Is there anything to it?  Or has RFK, Jr. “launched a whole new generation of conspiracy nuts 50 years later.”

Whether DeCosta-Klipa was acting on orders from above to produce such a specious piece or is ignorant of the fundamental research in a case that shouts out conspiracy is a question I cannot answer, although based on his go-to “expert” in his article – Daniel Moldea, whose contradictory disinformation on the case is well known to serious researchers – I would guess the former to be correct.   

Let me begin with the title, which is marvelously propagandistic and sets the naïve reader’s mind on the intended trajectory.    RFK Jr.’s recent claim in The Washington Post of a second shooter and his call therefore for a re-investigation (a redundancy since no genuine official investigation was done; it was a cover-up from the start) is followed by a question: “Is there anything to it?  This is followed by a quote from Moldea, repeating the CIA created meme about conspiracy nuts: Or has RFK Jr “launched a whole new generation of conspiracy nuts 50 years later.”  Note how Moldea is allowed an assertion in the title that is not followed by a question mark.  Language is the key to effective propaganda, including punctuation.  It is a subtle art, at which our mainstream corporate media are adept.

Screenshot from The Boston Globe, an article by Nik DeCosta-Klipa

DeCosta begins by asserting that “conspiracy theories concerning President John F. Kennedy’s death may be most widely circulated.” Thus the reader is led into this article with the insinuation that of course Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and anyone who questions that is a conspiracy nut.  So what about RFK’s murder?  

As the night follows day, we meet conspiracy nuts here too, courtesy of DeCosta-Klipa who allows Moldea a free hand to spout nonsense.  A person not familiar with the research done on this case by the great researcher Lisa Pease and others would assume that Moldea was the expert par excellence on RFK’s assassination, when nothing could be further from the truth.  James DiEugenio, Pease’s colleague and an equally brilliant researcher, has surgically dismembered Moldea’s work on the case.

So why has DeCosta-Klipa shined the spotlight on Moldea and given him so much space?

Image result for The killing of Robert F. Kennedy

It is unlikely that he has read Moldea’s 1995 book, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, a book about which DiEugenio rightly says: its “every major tenet is highly suspect, whose sourcing is not explicit, whose fairness is, to say the least, one-sided, whose completeness is just not there, whose use of witnesses-like Kaiser and McCowan-is rather lenient….it is a ‘bookshelf’ book that has no intellectual content or substance.”  He suggests it was commissioned by the government forces responsible for RFK’s death and the ongoing cover-up.

Moldea is allowed full leeway to rant:

To claim absurdly that the LAPD messed up and was not involved in the sinister plot and cover-up. 

To rip Robert Kennedy Jr. with the words “What Bobby Kennedy Jr. has done, he’s launched a whole new generation of conspiracy nuts who are going to believe that Sirhan didn’t do it and somebody else did.”

To utter the word conspiracy and conspiracy nuts constantly and to have that word repeated throughout by DeCosta-Klipa, as if he were Moldea’s echo.  The word conspiracy is used nine times in a highly pejorative sense.

(The conspiracy label was created by the CIA in 1967 to besmirch the name and reputation of anyone questioning the assassination of President Kennedy.  CIA agents and assets throughout the mass media were encouraged to use it constantly.  Of course they have.)

To preposterously claim that all the eyewitnesses were wrong and that since the autopsy definitively showed Kennedy was shot from the rear at point blank range that he must have turned around so Sirhan, who was standing feet away to the front could shoot him in his back and head.  To which, of course, DeCosta-Klipa has no reply, as if it weren’t ridiculous.

To falsely claim – lie – that Paul Schrade, an aide to the senator, who was walking behind him and was the first person shot, fell into RFK, pushing him toward Sirhan, when in fact Schrade fell backwards feet behind RFK.

To absurdly claim that the many bullet holes found in the door frames and wall weren’t bullet holes at all, but in DeCosta-Kipa’s words, paraphrasing Moldea, “were most likely the result of any number of kitchen carts banging into the wall.”  

Don’t laugh; there’s more.

To claim that the man highly suspected of having shot Kennedy from the rear, the security guard Thane Eugene Cesar, is innocent since he told him so.  But he doesn’t say that Cesar fled the country and is living somewhere in Asia under Moldea’s protection.

To claim the highly suspect police investigator of the shooting, DeWayne Wolfer, who also falsely asserts that no extra bullets were ever found, is a reliable source, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

And to top it off, DeCosta-Klipa grants Moldea the final words: 

“I think [RFK Jr.] has been misled, conned, and corrupted by the conspiracy crowd to believe this garbage that the man that murdered his father is innocent.”

The truth is the readers of The Boston Globe have been misled, conned and corrupted by a classic piece of propaganda.  

It is a disgrace.

*

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR) and prominent Virginia college and university professors on May 30 demanded publishers protect the quality and accuracy of history and social studies textbooks used in K-12 classrooms across the commonwealth. The VCHR letter urged publishers not to adopt “factually-challenged, biased and exclusionary ICS [Institute for Curriculum Services] recommendations.” Publishers contacted include Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall and National Geographic.

The Institute for Curriculum Services, with backing by state and local Israel advocacy organizations, submitted a large number of questionable proposed changes to the Virginia Department of Education and publishers during a recent textbook review process. Examples of ICS-submitted changes include:

1. Emphasizing Arab culpability for crisis initiation leading to military action and failure of peace efforts—and never Israeli culpability, even when it is undisputed historic fact.

2. Replacing the commonly used words of “settlers” with “communities,” “occupation” with “control of,” “wall” with “security fence,” and “militant” with “terrorist.”

3. Referencing Israeli claims such as “Israel annexed East Jerusalem” and the Golan Heights as accepted facts without referencing lack of official recognition by the United Nations and most member nation states.

Signatories of the VCHR letter to textbook publishers argued against “any rushed adoption” of such changes until “a diverse panel of qualified and nonpartisan academic experts is consulted for feedback.”

This initiative to maintain quality and accuracy in textbooks was led by the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights, a coalition of 16 organizations representing over 8,000 Virginians.

Among the 14 Virginia academic signatories of the letter are:

  • Professor Noura Erakat, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies, Social Justice, and International Area Studies, School of Interactive Studies, George Mason University
  • Professor Michael Fischbach, Professor of History, Randolph Macon College
  • Professor Peter Mandaville, Professor of International Affairs, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University;
  • Professor William B. Quandt, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, University of Virginia;
  • Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary.

Letters presenting all academic and VCHR coalition member organization signatories and other documentation sent to textbook publishers may be viewed online at the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights website at vchr.org/vatextbooks.html.

For more information about the campaign to protect the integrity of Virginia textbooks, contact VCHR point of contact for this issue, Jeanne Trabulsi at [email protected], or VCHR co-chairs Paul Noursi at [email protected] or Nancy Wein at [email protected].

Syria recently announced that it has handed over to its Russian and Iranian Astana partners a list of experts to participate in the upcoming UN-supervised “constitutional commission”.

This is an important milestone in the peace process because it proves that President Assad was sincere when he told his Russian counterpart in Sochi last month about his intention to participate in this still-unscheduled gathering as soon as possible. Damascus had hitherto been dragging its heels in this respect as part of what can only be presumed was a strategic gamble to lessen the amount of “compromises” that it would inevitably have to make, though that policy backfired after it inadvertently led to Israel perceiving it as a pro-Iranian ploy to indefinitely preserve Tehran’s military presence in the Arab Republic. Consequently, Tel Aviv bombed Syria several timesover the past month in ever-larger and more dramatic attacks that seem in hindsight to have been partially responsible for bringing Damascus to the negotiating table so suddenly.

The upcoming “constitutional commission” doesn’t yet have a date attached to it, but the overall agenda is obvious and allows one to get an idea of some of the most contentious points of this gathering. Clearly, everyone is going to discuss the future role of President Assad, though it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be forced out of office after the Syrian Arab Army succeeded in liberating most of the country’s population. What’s more probable in this regard is that he will become a figurehead leader that remains in his position throughout the country’s post-war transition as it devolves from a centralized to a “decentralized” state. It’s precisely this transformation that will lead a lessening of his power as all sides try to figure out how it’ll play out in practice.

“Decentralization” is never an easy process, let alone in a state as identity-diverse as Syria whose previously unified identity was irreparably damaged as a result of the foreign-instigated conflict. Ethno-regional and sectarian fault lines have been violently forced to the surface in some parts of the country, mostly those in the “de-escalation zones” where so-called “armed opposition” members are still in control but also in the American-occupied northeastern one-third of the country east of the Euphrates. In the latter agriculturally and energy-rich region, the US’ Kurdish allies are already running their own de-facto independent “federation” and are unlikely to voluntarily give it up, nor is the national military capable of liberating it given that the Pentagon has already proven that it will respond with disproportionate force to even the mildest violation of the so-called “deconfliction line” across the Euphrates.

The “armed opposition” and the militant Kurds also need to come to terms with Damascus about the future of their militias and whether they’ll integrate into a reconstituted Syrian Army or remain as the main military force in their unofficial “spheres of influence”. This is a very sensitive issue that could make or break the negotiations just as much as the discussions over President Assad’s political future could too, so all sides will need to proceed very carefully when talking about this topic. Taking stock of these disagreements, they can be summarized as working out the nitty-gritty territorial, administrative, and military details of Syria’s probable “decentralization” as well as the higher-level ones related to President Assad and the likely bicameral parliament that he’ll preside over during a transitional period once this “constitutional reform” process is completed.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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

This is the first paragraph of The Times article (paywall) regarding Britain’s now famous Doomsday Brexit plan:

“Britain would be hit with shortages of medicine, fuel and food within a fortnight if the UK tries to leave the European Union without a deal, according to a Doomsday Brexit scenario drawn up by senior civil servants for David Davis.”

The Times confirms that the port of Dover will collapse “on day one” if Britain crashes out of the EU, leading to critical shortages of supplies. This was the middle of three scenarios put forward by senior advisors. A type of best guestimate if you like. You simply do not want to know the outcome of the worst of those three scenarios. Indeed, we have been spared from such details.

The article states that the RAF would have to be deployed to ferry supplies around Britain. And yes, we’re still on the middle scenario here.

You would have to medevac medicine into Britain, and at the end of week two we would be running out of petrol as well,” a contributing source said.

The report continues to describe matters such as cross-channel disruption for heavy goods vehicles, which would also be catastrophic. Massive carparks will be required.

A senior official said in the ‘Doomsday’ Brexit plan:

We are entirely dependent on Europe reciprocating our posture that we will do nothing to impede the flow of goods into the UK. If for whatever reason, Europe decides to slow that supply down, then we’re screwed.

Let’s not worry about the fact that French borders are often left in chaos due to the all too familiar strikes that appear almost monthly during holiday season for one reason or another.

Home secretary Sajid Javid makes an unconvincing comment stating he’s ‘confident’ a deal will be done. That’s hardly the type of assurance we need is it?

UK officials emphasised that the June EU summit due on the 28th was heading for a “car crash” because “no progress has been made since March” to devise plans for a long-term deal. If your confidence in Brexit is starting to wane, don’t worry, half the nation are not just anxious but downright fearful – mainly because, neither in or out has given any concreate evidence of likely outcomes. This is probably because Brexit hasn’t been done before – and was designed that way. Deliberately.

One official said

“the scenarios are so explosive they have only been shared with a handful of ministers and are “locked in a safe.”

At what stage of their hapless fiddling, constant arguing and pitiful attempts to administer the kiss of life to the corpse that Brexit has turned out to be, does a politician officially earn the title of – stupid idiot?

“Just bloody get on with it” shout the Brexiteers, except both they and the UK government still can’t decide what ‘it’ is.

Still, not to worry, we have a ‘special relationship’ with the United States of America. Britain sends about 19 percent of total exports to the USA (forget the 44 percent sent to the EU). Except, we’ve just found out we’re not special anymore. Frankly, we never were and never have been, but now, we have proof. There’s a trade war about to kick off. And we’re going to be in it – but on the side of the EU.

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States are part of the G7. Except now that little club is already being referred to the G6 + 1, the plus one being the USA. The other six are furious that the USA would accuse them of being a national security threat over such simple matters as metal sales.

Let’s not worry about the fact that China, Russia, India and quarter of Africa are now executing oil trades outside of the USD. Let’s not worry that the rest of the world are now ganging up on isolationist America for attempting to tear down the world order. Just think about that for a moment. We’re on the wrong side – we’re on the losing side, because we’re with America – except now we’re not. And anyway, who would back the entire nation on a man like Trump and a country like America??

Liam Fox, a detestable man who rightly should be banned from managing a corner shop let alone negotiate the future prospects of Britain promised 40 trade deals signed up by next March. How many have signed? Nil, neant, null, and nulo. Not one.

Fox has previously claimed that securing a trade deal with the EU after Brexit would be, and I quote: “the easiest in human history.” He was wrong.

Then we have the Five-Eyes Alliance – the global spying and communications network of the USA, UK, N-Z, Canada and Australia. If anything, this would be something to do with that special relationship, especially as Britain excels in breaking international laws in areas such as illegal surveillance. Except that is falling apart too as N-Z is being threatened with expulsion by none other than America – because it works closely with China on a number of projects that America thinks makes it vulnerable to Chinese influence. What happens when Trump is reminded that one of the worlds largest nuclear power stations is in Britain – currently being built and funded in part by ….ahem …China.

In the meantime, Britain is being forced into making up fantastical stories about Russians running around the Shires with deadly nerve agents whilst we watch £1billion projects being shelved by banning football club owners who have resided and heavily invested in the country for decades. Britain has gone from farce to tragedy. Just as Thatcher walked away from the free market ideology of extreme neoliberal capitalism and all that it has brought, Cameron walked away from his little ‘miscalculation’ by offering a disaffected electorate a protest vote. The rest of us can’t walk away from a country in crisis – we have little option but to follow our so-called leaders.

The only credible plan they do have and let’s be fair, it was they who put the country in this position in the first place, is called the Doomsday Brexit Plan.

Excellent. At first, you were anxious, then a bit unnerved, but by now, you really should be alarmed. What if the Brexiteers are wrong and the officials and civil servants who created this document are right? What then?

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Thousands attend the funeral for Razan al-Najjar, the 21-year-old medic shot and killed near the Gaza border with Israel June 1. (Reuters)

Thousands of people gathered in Gaza on Saturday for the funeral of Razan al-Najjar, a 21-year-old Palestinian medic who witnesses say Israeli soldiers shot dead near the border fence on Friday.

Medical workers, dressed in white uniforms, marched in her funeral procession, holding Palestinian flags and photos of her face. Her father walked holding his daughter’s own medical vest, once white, now stained red with her blood.

More than 115 people have been killed since protests began on the border at the end of March, but Najjar is only the second woman to die. The first was a teenage protester.

Photos from the scene immediately after Najjar was shot show a group of men carrying the volunteer in her white uniform, her head tilted back and her gloved hand limp around their shoulders. Witnesses said she was shot in the chest.

The Israeli military said on Saturday that it would investigate her death but that its troops worked “in accordance with standard operating procedures.”

“The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) constantly works to draw operational lessons and reduce the number of casualties in the area of the Gaza Strip security fence,” the military said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Hamas terror organization deliberately and methodically places civilians in danger.”

Last month, the New York Times interviewed Najjar in Gaza. She was one of the only female medics responding to medical emergencies during the protests organized by Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza.

“We have one goal — to save lives and evacuate people,” she said in the video. “And to send a message to the world: Without weapons, we can do anything.”

After her death, a volunteer ambulance worker, Izzat Shatat, told the Associated Press that he and Najjar were planning to announce their engagement at the end of Ramadan.

Hamas called the protests this spring the Great March of Return. The demonstrations intended to shed light on the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on Gaza, and also call for “right of return” for Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 war. On May 14, the same day the United States opened its controversial new embassy in Jerusalem, tens of thousands of Palestinians demonstrated in the Gaza Strip.

Organizers encouraged the protesters to try to burst through the fence into Israel, and Israeli soldiers responded with firepower. They killed dozens of people, including teenagers, and wounded at least 2,700 demonstrators, the Palestinian Health Ministry said. The United Nations said that “those responsible for outrageous human rights violations must be held to account.”

But on Friday, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israel’s “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force” against Palestinians. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley called the resolution one-sided. The White House has blamed Hamas for the violence in Gaza.

After Najjar died in the operating room on Friday, Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N. Middle East envoy, tweeted that

“#Israel needs to calibrate its use of force and Hamas need to prevent incidents at the fence. Escalation only costs more lives.”

“Medical workers are #NotATarget!” he wrote.

In her interview with the New York Times, Najjar said that Gaza needed more female medics like herself.

“The strength that I showed as a first responder on the first day of protests, I dare you to find it anyone else,” she said.

Having just returned from a trip to Russia, I am pleased to report that the Russian people and the officialdom that I encountered displayed none of the vitriol towards Americans that I half expected as a response to the vilifying of Moscow and all its works that pervades the U.S. media and Establishment.

To be sure, many Russians I spoke with were quick to criticize the Trump Administration for its hot and cold performance vis-à-vis the bilateral ties to Moscow while also expressing mystification over why the relationship had gone south so quickly, but this anger over foreign policy did not necessarily translate into contempt for the American people and way of life that characterized the Soviet period. At least not yet.

Somewhat to my surprise, ordinary Russians were also quick to openly criticize President Vladimir Putin for his autocratic tendencies and his willingness to continue to tolerate corruption, but everyone I spoke to also conceded that he had generally acted constructively and had greatly improved life for ordinary people. Putin remains wildly popular.

One question that came up frequently was “Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?” I responded that the answer is not so simple and there are a number of constituencies that, for one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to keep everyone “safe.”

And then there are the neocons. As always, they are a distinct force for creative destruction, as they put it, certainly first in line with their hands out to get the funding of their no-expenses-spared foundations and think tanks, but also driven ideologically, which has made them the intellectual vanguard of the war party. They provide the palatable intellectual framework for America to take on the world, metaphorically speaking, and constitute the strike force that is always ready to appear on television talk shows or to be quoted in the media with an appropriate intelligent sounding one liner that can be used to justify the unthinkable. In return they are richly rewarded both with money and status.

The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as “American exceptionalism.” Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon.

The founding fathers of neoconism were New York Jewish “intellectuals” who evolved (or devolved) from being bomb throwing Trotskyites to “conservatives,” a process they self-define as “idealism getting mugged by reality.” The only reality is that they have always been faux conservatives, embracing a number of aggressive foreign policy and national security positions while also privately endorsing the standard Jewish liberal line on social issues. Neocon fanaticism on the issues that they do promote also suggests that more that a little of the Trotskyism remains in their character, hence their tenacity and ability to slither between the Democratic and Republican parties while also appearing comfortably on disparate media outlets considered to be either liberal or conservative, i.e. on both Fox news and MSNBC programs featuring the likes of Rachel Maddow.

I have long believed that the core hatred of Russia comes from the neocons and is to a large extent tribal or, if you prefer, ethno-religious based. Why? Because if the neoconservatives were actually foreign policy realists there is no good reason to express any visceral dislike of Russia or its government. The allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. are clearly a sham, just as are the tales of the alleged Russian poisoning of the Skripals in Winchester England and, most recently, the claimed assassination of journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kiev which turned out to be a false flag. Even the most cursory examination of the past decade’s developments in Georgia and Ukraine reveal that Russia was reacting to legitimate major security threats engineered by the United States with a little help from Israel and others. Russia has not since the Cold War ended threatened the United States and its ability to re-acquire its former Eastern European satellites is a fantasy. So why the hatred?

In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.

With the looting stopped by Putin, the neocons and friends no longer had any reason to play nice, so they used their considerable resources in the media and within the halls of power in places like Washington, London and Paris to turn on Moscow. And they also might have perceived that there was a worse threat looming. The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ. The former Red Square now hosts a Christmas market while the nearby tomb of Lenin is only open one morning in the week and attracts few visitors.

I would like to suggest that it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia. The fact is that much of Bolshevik state atheism was driven by the large overrepresentation of Jews in the party in its formative days. British journalist Robert Wilton’s meticulously researched 1920 study “The Last Days of the Romanovs” describes how David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 message to Washington that

“The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

Dutch Ambassador William Oudendyke echoed that sentiment, writing that

“Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

Russia’s greatest twentieth century writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, feted in the west for his staunch resistance to Soviet authoritarianism, suddenly found himself friendless by the media and publishing world when he wrote “Two Centuries Together: A Russo-Jewish History to 1972”, recounting some of the dark side of the Russian-Jewish experience. In particular, Solzhenitsyn cited the significant overrepresentation of Russian Jews both as Bolsheviks and, prior to that time, as serf-owners.

Jews notably played a particularly disproportionate role in the Soviet secret police, which began as the Cheka and eventually became the KGB. Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro noted how “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka “stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.” In Ukraine, “Jews made up nearly eighty percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents.”

In light of all this it should surprise no one that the new Russian government pf 1918 issued a decree a few months after taking power making anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The Communist regime became the world’s first to criminally punish any anti-Jewish sentiment.

Wilton used official Russian government documents to identify the make-up of the Bolshevik regime in 1917-9. The 62 members of the Central Committee included 41 Jews while the Extraordinary Cheka Commission Cheka of Moscow’s 36 members included 23 Jews. The 22 strong Council of the People’s Commissars numbered had 17 Jews. According to data furnished by the Soviet authorities, out of the 556 most important functionaries of the Bolshevik state in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Latvians, 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech and 458 Jews.

In 1918-9, effective Russian governmental power rested in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918 this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were Russians. The nine Jews were: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Larine, Uritsky, Volodarski, Kamenev, Smidovich, Yankel, and Steklov. The three Russians were: Lenin, Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.

The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes. Browder is a complete hypocrite who has fabricated and sold to Congress a largely phony and self-serving narrative relating to Russian corruption. He is also not surprisingly a neocon media darling in the U.S. It has been more than plausibly claimed that Browder was a principal looter of Russia’s resources in the 1990s and Russian courts have convicted him of tax evasion among other crimes.

The undeniable historical affinity of Jews for the Bolshevik brand of communism coupled with the Jewishness of the so-called oligarchs rather suggests that the hatred of a Russia that has turned its back on those particular aspects of Jewish heritage might be at least part of what drives some neocons. Just as in the case of Syria which the neocons, bowing to Israel’s interests, prefer to see in chaos, some might long for a return to the good old days of looting by mostly Jewish foreign interests, as under Yeltsin, or even better for the heady days of 1918-9 Bolshevism when Jews ruled all of Russia.

*

This article was also published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job.“Who is Driving the Hostility towards Russia?”
  • Tags: ,

Echoing the tyrannical claim of his lawyer Rudy Giuliani in a Twitter outburst on Monday, President Donald Trump asserted that he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself—a statement legal experts said is both factually inaccurate and dangerous.

.

Responding to the president’s tweet, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote,

“You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand why courts would never uphold a president’s power to commit crimes and then pardon himself for them.”

Other legal experts and commentators similarly disputed Trump’s claim that he has a right to pardon himself—while also noting the “very, very disturbing” implications of the president’s assertion.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Very, Very Disturbing’: Trump Asserts ‘Absolute Right’ to Pardon Himself
  • Tags:

No constitutional provision prohibits presidential self-pardons.

Article II, Section 3 states the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” – the Constitution’s so-called Take Care Clause.

No one is above the law, including US presidents. They can be indicted for criminal offenses. The issue of presidential self-pardoning authority is unchartered territory.

Legal scholars disagree on if it’s permissible or not. Nothing in US law states it’s not.

On June 4, Trump tweeted:

“As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?”

“In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!”

According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley, Trump can pardon anyone including himself. The Constitution’s Article II, Section 2 states

“(t)he President…have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

No constitutional provision or language prohibits presidential self-pardons. It’s not protection from impeachment – affecting government office holders.

Pardons concern individuals in or out of government, Turley explained. Under the Constitution, anyone impeached and convicted “shall…be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Former Justice Department attorney Samuel Morison agrees with Turley, saying

“(i)f there are any limits on (pardoning) power, it’s got to be in the Constitution. It’s nowhere in the Constitution.”

Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuiliani said he has self-pardoning power, using it “unthinkable,” he added.

Law Professor Mark Tushnet said much the same thing. In Federalist No. 74, Alexander Hamilton (the first US Treasury Secretary) said “humanity and good policy” require pardoning power to be exclusive presidential authority to be used “scrupulously (with) caution” – not for self-interest.

Law Professor Andrew Wright said

“(o)ne of the basic rules is that no man is a judge in his own case. (Trump isn’t) a king.”

Law Professor Jessica Levinson explained that the Constitution means what Supreme Court justices decide. In other words, the law of the land is what they say it is. A constitutional amendment would be required to change or override this interpretation.

Ahead of Nixon’s August 1974 resignation, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said no one may judge his or her own case, claiming the president cannot pardon himself.

Law Professor Asha Rangappa interpreted this to mean that

“(t)he point of the pardon power (is) to bestow mercy on another, not to enrich oneself.”

Law Professor Jimmy Gurule said the notion of Trump pardoning himself isn’t the behavior of an innocent man, adding no one is above the law. No one can be criminally culpable with impunity, not even US presidents.

Not according to Law Professor Susan Block, saying presidents can self-pardon – but they cannot stop or interfere with an investigation. That would constitute obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense.

Emirta Professor of Law Marjorie Cohn called the notion of a presidential self-pardon an unsettled issue.

Yet “the fact that Trump is thinking about such pardons is an indication he is concerned about his own criminal liability,” adding:

“Rather than acting to fulfill his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, Trump is violating or advocating violation of many of them. His law-breaking renders him vulnerable to criminal indictment and perhaps eventually to impeachment.”

Law Professor Keith Whittington calls presidential self-pardoning a murky area of law never before tested.

Many legal experts believe self-pardoning is an admission of guilt, risking a constitutional crisis – an issue the framers didn’t address.

A constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling would be required to correct the omission.

*

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

The Interminable Palestinian Uprising

June 5th, 2018 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

“Naila and the Uprising” is a new film about Palestine—an old story with a new edition. An almost exclusively women’s production “Naila” effectively employs evocative animation alongside compelling personal testimonials of Palestinian resistance 30 years ago.

The “Great March of Return” which the world just experienced– immobilized and shamed by the silence of political leaders– will doubtless be the focus of some future documentary. Naila’s story, which begins with her resistance efforts and imprisonment in the early 1980s, is nevertheless timely. See this.

Why? Because every record of Palestinian civil resistance is linked to today’s, to the next, and to the last– reaching back to the 1967 war. It was then that Israel imposed more severe restrictions on Palestinian life, when Israeli authorities explicitly announced their determination to suppress Palestinian aspirations of any kind, by any means, and to continue to expropriate their homes and lands.

Daily, in one form or another– by one death each day or 60, by one smashed home, one detention or one prison sentence, one deported dissident, one miscarried baby, one interrogation, or one handicapped body, one uprooted olive tree, one ravaged field, one expropriated farm, or one more check point, one dispossessed family, by another law restricting residence in Jerusalem, or another barrier set along an ancient road—Israel hammers at Palestinian existence. Then, every day, or each month, or after a year, Palestinian resistance re-emerges.

“Naila and the Uprising” returns to the 1980s to reveal the early stages of what has become an inexorable reassertion by Palestinians of their history and their legal and moral claims. The primary voice within this film, Naila Ayesh, speaks to Majd, her now grown son, taking him and viewers to before his birth, to 1950.

Majd’s mother was 8 years old, at school, when she heard that her home had been demolished by Israeli bulldozers. Now 60, Naila recalls her departure for Bulgaria to study 10 years later. There she met Jamal Zakout, the man she would marry, and with whom she would return to Gaza and engage together in their lifelong resistance to occupation.

Her story reminds us of now forgotten Zionist tactics, in this case, the exiling of dissidents. Zakout was one of many Palestinians expelled from Gaza. Moreover, we witness (with live footage from the event) how, when Naila and her son sought to visit Zakout (in Egypt), Israeli authorities allowed them to do so only if they remained away for two years. The history of heartless strategies employed by Israel is a long one.

The widespread deportation and imprisonment of Palestinian men at that time resulted in drawing Palestinian women more actively into the struggle, a point around which this film turns. See this. “Naila and the Uprising” includes testimonials by colleagues of Naila, young women, their babies on their backs who began to march in protest. Their actions in turn led to the formation of women’s committees which helped launch a successful boycott of Israeli goods. (Today that kind of boycott is less possible since Israel’s grip on Palestinian economy is far more impenetrable.)

That 1988 boycott and the pervasive engagement of women in the resistance, the film argues, was a major factor in creating a sustained uprising– what became known as the Intifada.
One could interpret last month’s Great March of Return —resulting in 123 murdered and over 13,000 wounded—as the latest expression of the Intifada. There are bound to be more.

Completed in 2017, “Naila and The Uprising” is showing in theaters in Europe, Canada and USA. See trailer below.

*

Dr Aziz is the author of Heir to A Silent Song: Two Rebel Women of Nepal, published by Tribhuvan University in Nepal in 2001, and available through Barnes and Nobel. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

VIDEO : Dietro la parata del 2 Giugno.

June 5th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Quella del 2 giugno non è stata una parata militare, anzi nemmeno una parata, ma una «rassegna»: lo sostiene il ministero della Difesa che ne ha curato la regia (ultimo atto della ministra Pinotti).

La sfilata ai Fori Imperiali di fronte al nuovo governo appena insediato – è stata simbolicamente aperta da 330 sindaci in rappresentanza della società civile, seguiti da tutti i settori delle Forze armate, per celebrare la «Festa degli Italiani Uniti per il Paese».

Nel suo messaggio il Presidente della Repubblica Mattarella ha espresso la gratitudine del popolo italiano alle Forze armate per «la preziosa opera che svolgono in tante travagliate regioni del mondo per l’assistenza alle popolazioni gravate dai conflitti», in base alla «nostra Carta Costituzionale, architrave delle Istituzioni e supremo riferimento per tutti».

Man mano che i reparti sfilavano, venivano elencate le missioni militari in cui le Forze armate italiane sono impegnate in oltre 20 paesi: dal Kosovo allIraq e allAfghanistan, dal Libano alla Libia e alla Lettonia, dalla Somalia a Gibuti e al Niger. In altre parole, venivano elencate le guerre e le altre operazioni militari cui lItalia ha partecipato e partecipa, violando la propria Costituzione, nel quadro della strategia aggressiva ed espansionista Usa/Nato.

Le operazioni militari allestero, in cui lItalia èimpegnata, sono in continuo aumento. Oggi 5 giugno, su incarico della Nato, cacciabombardieri italiani Eurofighter Typhoon cominciano a «proteggere» insieme a quelli greci lo spazio aereo del Montenegro, ultimo entrato nella Alleanza. Cacciabombardieri italiani già «proteggono» i cieli di Slovenia, Albania ed Estonia dalla «minaccia russa». Navi da guerra italiane si apprestano a salpare per il Pacifico, dove parteciperanno alla Rimpac 2018, la piùgrande esercitazione navale del mondo cui prenderanno parte, sotto comando Usa, le marine militari di 27 paesi in funzione anti-Cina (accusata dagli Usa di «espansione e coercizione» nel Mar Cinese Meridionale).

Forze speciali italiane hanno partecipato in Niger a una esercitazione del Comando Africa degli Stati uniti, sponsorizzata dallUnione europea, in cui sono stati addestrati circa 1900 militari di 20 paesi africani.

In Niger, dove gli Usa stanno costruendo ad Agadez una grande base per droni armati e forze speciali, lItalia si appresta a costruire una base destinata a ospitare inizialmente 470 militari, 130 mezzi terrestri e 2 aerei. Scopo ufficiale delloperazione, ostacolata da opposizioni allinterno del governo nigerino, è aiutare il Niger e i paesi limitrofi a combattere il terrorismo. Scopo reale è quello di partecipare, sulla scia di Francia e Stati uniti, al controllo militare di una regione ricchissima di materie prime oro, diamanti, uranio, coltan, petrolio e molte altre di cui nemmeno le briciole vanno alla popolazione che vive per la maggior parte in povertà estrema. Col risultato che cresce il dramma sociale e di conseguenza anche il flusso migratorio verso lEuropa.

Il nuovo governo intende «rivalutare la nostra presenza nelle missioni internazionali sotto il profilo del loro effettivo rilievo per linteresse nazionale». Per farlo, occorre però stabiire quale sia linteresse nazionale. Ossia se lItalia debba restare allinterno di un sistema di guerra dominato dagli Usa e dalle maggiori potenze europee, o ne debba uscire per essere un paese sovrano e neutrale in base ai principi della propria Costituzione.

Politica interna e politica estera sono due facce della stessa medaglia: non ci può essere reale libertà allinterno se lItalia, sovvertendo lArticolo 11, usa  la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli.

Manlio Dinucci

Video (PandoraTV) :

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on VIDEO : Dietro la parata del 2 Giugno.

First published in March 2018. See also the recently released Amnesty Report.

Currently, the attention of mainstream media is focused on the situation in the battered enclave of Eastern Ghouta. More than 80,000 civilians have already fled the region via humanitarian corridors despite numerous threats from terrorists, and the humanitarian situation there is being improved day by day. However, the same cannot be said of Raqqa that lies in ruins.

Almost four years since 2013 till 2017 Raqqa was run by ISIS terrorists. The residents who were unable to flee the city had to obey the diktats of the jihadists. Those who had refused to comply with the rules of ISIS were subjected to torture or publicly executed on the city’s streets.

In October 2017, after five months of grueling battle, the U.S. backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) ended the battle for the de facto ISIS capital. However, the U.S. media were silent about the price of victory in Raqqa.

Yet, during the city’s assault, several Syrian experts pointed to the irresponsible and ill-considered actions of the U.S.-led international coalition. The coalition strikes frequently led to numerous victims among civilians and extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure instead of the elimination of terrorists.

On October 19, 2017, USA Today quoting the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that the total civilian death toll was more than  1,800, and around 80% of the city had been completely destroyed.

Actually, much more people suffered from terrorist attacks as well as actions of the so-called liberators. This is evidenced by mass graves containing bodies of dozens of civilians and Syrian servicemen found in the outskirts of Raqqa.

At the same time, a woman told France 24 journalists that all her relatives had been killed by a coalition airstrike and their bodies were still under the rubble of her house. She also said the Kurdish commanders had tried to extort money for the alleged reconstruction of Raqqa instead of any assistance or support.

Notably, due to the rise of daily temperatures, the dead bodies lying under the rubble start to decompose very rapidly. Then putrefaction enters to the soil and groundwater that led to numerous disease outbreaks and epidemics.

Indeed, after the so-called “liberation” of Raqqa by SDF and American servicemen, the locals are still oppressed. This time the acts of aggression come from US supported Kurdish rebels.

Nowadays the locals face yet another threat in the shape of improvised explosive devices, left behind by the terrorists. According to Human Rights Watch statement, homemade landmines have killed and injured at least 500 civilians, including more than 150 children, in Raqqa, Syria since the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) was pushed out of the city in October 2017.

Such information sounds shocking and raises many questions pertaining to the SDF ‘engineering units’ that started demining works only one month after Raqqa’s full liberation.

Nowadays Raqqa looks like a ghost town with ruined and uninhabitable houses as the restoration works have not started in full swing. Moreover, the water and electricity supply have not yet been restored.

In comparison, demining and dismantling the explosive devices in Aleppo by the Syrian sappers with the support of the Russian colleagues began just after the liberation of the city and took only three months.

Furthermore, the American authorities have repeatedly stated their intention to take an active role in the restoration, mine-clearance as well as assistance to the locals after the full liberation of the city from ISIS. After the city fell under the control of SDF Washington preferred to break its promises.

So, the U.S. is directly responsible for the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Raqqa. Turning the city into ruins Washington tries to cover up the war crimes committed by its proxy forces while also blocking the humanitarian aid sent by the UN.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria directly from Global Research.  

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

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

Around two weeks ago, a Facebook friend of mine proposed an experiment to a small group of us. Social media has become a boxing ring, she said. The two sides, left and right, dig into their positions and slug it out in the comments — and that’s if they don’t just “block” each other. My friend suggested that for a month, we try to engage in a productive dialogue with right-wingers on Facebook, even with the most combative of commenters. After all, our aim is to change what and how people think, and to do that, we need to speak to other side. Let’s try it, I said, if only for a month — to see what happens.

For the past two days, I’ve been thinking about Razan al-Najjar, the 21-year-old paramedic shot and killed by Israeli soldiers Friday near the Gaza-Israel separation fence. According to witnesses, she was wearing her white paramedic’s uniform, attempting to treat protesters near the fence when she was shot. Immediately following Razan’s death, her picture appeared everywhere on my Facebook newsfeed. I, too, shared a post with her picture.

The angry responses came quickly.

Here was an opportunity to try out the dialogue experiment my friend had suggested, I thought. Maybe because Razan in her white uniform was so different from the image of the terrorist that the Israeli collective imagination assigned the protesters in Gaza, I hoped there would be an opening for compassion, for second thoughts, for a discourse free from blind hatred.

I was wrong.

Instead, the following responses came pouring in:

“What was she doing there in the first place? “Why didn’t she wait for the wounded in the hospital?” “You really think our soldiers kill protesters on purpose?” “That’s how it is in war.” “Hamas makes them to go to these protests.”

The funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

The funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

I tried to respond with calm, level-headed answers.

She didn’t wait for the wounded at the hospital because the Israeli army’s massive use of live fire made it necessary for first responders to be in the field — just like Israeli medics would at a mass casualty event.

And no, this is not “how it is in war.” Firstly, this is not a war. This is heavily armed soldiers facing down unarmed protesters. Secondly, even in war there are rules, and sniper fire against medics, journalists and children is a war crime. Hamas did not force her to be there, either; numerous interviews with Razan were published in recent weeks in which she explains why she volunteered as a medic during the protests.

Then the more violent responses came, in public and in private messages — bizarre death threats, a lot of toxic invective. What kind of a dialogue is possible when faced with that?

Someone asked,

“How do you know this is true, were you there?”

He added a picture from 2001 suicide bombing of the Dolphinarium, a beach-front nightclub in Tel Aviv, to prove some inexplicable point. Another commenter responded,

“How do you know there was an attack on the Dolphinarium, were you there?”

Another yet claimed that the entire story of Razan was fabricated, that they put a paramedic’s uniform on her body only after she died. No amount of photos showing Najjar treating wounded protesters over the past month could convince him. Palestinians, to him, are liars by definition.

Taken together, the responses reflected the depressing fact that for most of the Israeli public, Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers are guilty by default. The identity of the deceased or the circumstances of the killing are irrelevant. Many of the commenters who responded to my post made the effort to stress that they were were not right-wingers. One even identified as a supporter of Meretz, the dovish left-wing party.

I gave up on the conversation because it was too frustrating and instead continued to look for interviews conducted with Razan. There are quite a few online. The young medic, it seems, was of significant interest to numerous international media outlets. In one of the interviews, Razan says:

 

People ask my father what I’m doing here, and getting a salary. He tells them, ‘I’m proud of my daughter, she provides care to the children of our country.’ And because in our society, women are often judged, but society has to accept us . If people don’t want to accept us by choice, they will be forced to accept us. Because we have more strength than any man. The strength that I showed as a first-responder on the first day of the protests — I dare you to find it in anyone else.

After that, I watched a short video of young men and women, perhaps Razan’s friends, perhaps her family members, in tears, their piercing cries announcing her death. One of them held his head and shouted her name over and over again.

Mourners during the funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

Mourners during the funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

I then returned to the comments that had accumulated under the picture of the young woman who went to care for wounded protesters and came back in a shroud. My heart struggled to contain the sadness.

I apologize to my well-intentioned friend. The bitter truth is that the Israeli collective consciousness is light-years away from a place where it can even begin speak about the basic concepts of justice, human rights, and human equality before God. I doubt that years of occupation and moral corruption can be corrected.

I also apologize to Razan, the young Gazan woman who lived her whole life under occupation, more than half under the brutal siege. She did not taste a single day of freedom in her short life. She went out into the Valley of Death by the separation barrier to care for her wounded countrymen and never came back. With shame beyond words, I apologize. Rest in peace Razan, may your memory bring freedom and justice to your people.

US Pacific Command (PACOM) is now the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Command, reflecting “connectivity between the Indian and Pacific oceans,” according to war secretary James Mattis.

US strategy remains unchanged, seeking Indo-Pacific and global dominance, wanting pro-Western puppet regimes replacing all challengers to its imperial aims.

China in the Pacific, Russia in Eurasia, and Iran in the Middle East remain prime US targets for regime change.

Trump continues Obama’s Asia pivot strategy, advancing Washington’s regional military footprint – involving containment of China’s growing political, economic and military strength, along with checking Russia.

War in a part of the world hostile to invaders is possible. Upcoming Trump/Kim Jong-un summit talks offer no assurance of easing tensions – responsibly stepping back from the brink not a US attribute.

Washington demands all nations bend to its will, GW Bush crudely saying:

“You’re either with us or against us.”

Neutrality isn’t an option.

Neither are fostering world peace and stability, promoting equity and justice, along with respecting rule of law principles and democratic values – anathema notions to Republicans and undemocratic Dems.

On Saturday, Mattis addressed the Asia Security Summit’s Shangri-La Dialogue plenary session in Singapore – his remarks aimed at China more hostile than encouraging, stoking tensions instead of responsible outreach to avoid them.

His comments about “a free-and-open Indo-Pacific” reflect US aims for regional dominance.

“(M)ake no mistake,” Mattis roared.

“America is in the Indo-Pacific to stay. This is our priority theater, our interests, and the regions are inextricably intertwined.”

Adding “no one nation can or should dominate the Indo-Pacific” belies Washington’s intent to control the region unchallenged – nations unwilling to bend to its will targeted for regime change.

Chinese General He Lei at the plenary session countered Mattis, saying America is the real source of regional tensions and possible conflicts.

Retired Chinese General Yao Yunzhu added

Washington “created a grand narrative consisting of keywords including ‘rule-based order’, ‘freedom of navigation and overflight’, and ‘militarization’ “ – criticism aimed at China.

People’s Liberation Army Col. Zhao Xiaozhuo slammed Washington, saying

“(t)he Shangri-La Dialogue has become an occasion for China and the US to engage in fights,” adding:

“(I)t was inevitable that China had to hit back at Mattis’ accusations. But engaging in a fight does not help to solve the problems.”

On North Korea, Mattis demanded what Washington is unlikely to get short of iron-clad security guarantees the DPRK seeks – never assured in dealings with the US.

“Our objective remains the complete, verifiable, and irreversible…denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” said Mattis – wanting the DPRK to eliminate its key deterrent to feared US aggression, getting nothing in return but empty promises.

At the same time, Mattis stressed “modernizing our alliance with both the Republic of Korea and Japan” – code language for pursuing increased regional militarization under Pentagon control.

“(I)ncreasing economic prosperity” means benefits accruing to US corporate predators at the expense of foreign competitors.

Mattis slammed China, saying its “policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness of our strategy.”

He criticized Beijing’s right to build and develop offshore islands, militarizing them for self-defense, China’s Global Times saying:

“These islands need to be protected. Therefore deploying defensive weapons is just as logical as planting trees.”

With frequent provocations by US warships near Chinese territorial waters “how could there not be even one air-defense or anti-ship missile on the islands?”

“The US has deployed more of its military assets in the South China Sea than those of the other countries in the region.”

“And Washington has the temerity to repeatedly accuse Beijing of ‘militarizing’ the South China Sea. We have seen hypocritical diplomatic rhetoric but none” matches extreme US hubris and arrogance, adding:

“These islands need to be protected. Therefore deploying defensive weapons is just as logical as planting trees. Given the complex geopolitical situation where US warships, including its aircraft carriers, continue to cruise the region, how could there not be even one air-defense or anti-ship missile on the islands?”

“The danger in the South China Sea is caused by the US continuing to increase its military presence in the region, forcing China to naturally upgrade its defensive weapons on the islands. This in turn gives the US more excuses to exert military pressure, causing regional tensions to spiral.”

Mattis turned truth on its head, accusing Beijing of “militarization (for) intimidation and coercion” – US policy globally, not China’s, cooperating with other nations, not bullying or attacking them.

*

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

Last Friday, 1 June, a Palestinian volunteer medic, Razan Al Najar, was fasting and tending to the wounded at Gaza’s artificial fence with Israel. Thousands of miles away, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, was scheming on behalf of Israel at the world body. The day ended with martyrdom and glory for Razan and shame and humiliation for Nikki.

Just like she had done since the start of the Great March of Return on 30 March, Razan said goodbye to her family to go to the border, knowing that her skills would undoubtedly be called upon to treat Palestinians planning to march to the fence that artificially separates Gaza from the rest of historic Palestine. They have been marching to exercise their right of return to the homes they and their families hail from and which Israel and its terrorist gangs had expelled them from in 1948 and continued to do since then. Razan’s medical skills would surely be needed because Israel decided to deploy tens of highly trained snipers to kill Palestinians. The number killed has now reached 119, with over ten thousand injured; some estimates put this figure at over 13,000.

A post on Facebook whose accuracy I cannot verify says that her last words to her mother were to ask her to cook stuffed vine leaves for her breaking of the fast meal at sunset. She said her goodbyes and left to join her medical colleagues at the fence. Nikki Haley would at that time been probably having her breakfast before heading to the UN to decide how to deal with the 15-member Security Council. It had failed to agree on any statement regarding the events at the Gaza fence since the start of the marches, despite the high number of casualties. The choice for the Council that day was whether to back a resolution tabled by Kuwait calling for protection for the Palestinian people or to back an American resolution condemning Hamas for a volley of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip in response to Israeli crimes.

File photo of 21-year-old Razan Al-Najar, a volunteer medic in Gaza, killed on June 1, 2018, during the 10th week of the 'Great March of Return' protests at the Gaza-Israel border

Twenty-one-year-old Razan was the eldest of six siblings. She had a diploma in general nursing and had completed some 38 first aid courses. Although she had not secured paid work, she volunteered in hospitals and with NGOs and medical organisations, building skills and experience that made her an asset when it came to the Great March.

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Razan explained why she had volunteered to help with the Great Return March, especially as a woman.

“Being a medic is not only a job for a man,” Razan said. “It’s for women, too.”

She also bore witness to the final moments of some of those who were fatally wounded.

“It breaks my heart that some of the young men who were injured or killed made their wills in front of me,” she told Al Jazeera. “Some even gave me their accessories [as gifts] before they died.”

In a post on her Facebook account on the 16 May, Razan denied claims that she and others went to the fence under duress.

On 1 June, she was shot in the back by an Israeli sniper, the human rights group Al Mezan stated, citing eyewitnesses and its investigations. She was100m from the fence the moment she was shot and was wearing clothing which clearly identified her as a medic. Her blood stained medical vest accompanied her to her grave during what was a massive funeral the following day.

Palestinians attend the funeral ceremony of Razan Ashraf Najjar, 21, a female paramedic who was shot dead by Israeli forces while healing wounded demonstrators during 'Great March of Return' protests in Khan Yunis on Friday, in Huzaa neighbourhood of Khan Yunis, Gaza on June 02, 2018 [Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu Agency]

Palestinians attend the funeral ceremony of Razan Ashraf Najjar, 21, a female paramedic who was shot dead by Israeli forces while healing wounded demonstrators during ‘Great March of Return’ protests in Khan Yunis on Friday, in Huzaa neighbourhood of Khan Yunis, Gaza on June 02, 2018 [Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu Agency]

Contrast the humane and selfless acts of 21-year-old Razan, with limited opportunities to bring peace and justice to her people, with the shameful and brazen attempts in the Security Council by US Ambassador Nikki Haley to deny another people, Razan’s people, protection from Israeli terror. While Kuwait had brought a resolution to the Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to an oppressed people and ensure their protection, Haley was bringing a resolution to denounce Hamas for the volley of rockets that were launched into other Israeli controlled areas following the deadly attacks at the fence and bombings of the beleaguered enclave.

Votes on the two texts came shortly after Razan’s death. Haley failed to garner any votes for the resolution except her own, with three countries voting against it and 11 abstaining. A complete humiliation for the US and for Haley personally, leaving observers scrambling through historical records to find another occasion when a resolution only had the support of the country proposing it. None were found at the time of writing this piece.

Haley was again isolated when the US vetoed a resolution to protect Palestinians. With her Israel proxy, she had turned her back on a largely unarmed Palestinian people, facing the might of Israel’s military, aided by American military hardware worth billions of dollars. She had walked out of a previous Council meeting on Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters when their representative began to speak. It was a clear breach of protocol which brought heavy condemnation.  Given her overall performance as US ambassador, President Trump should, without delay, sack Haley. She has brought isolation and disgrace to her country; all for the sake of an undeserving ally, Israel.

On 1 June 2018, Razan lost her life while Nikki Haley lost her humanity defending the terrorist actions of a rogue state, Israel. Razan died a proud Palestinian full of humanity and will be remembered with the same name she was born with. In contrast, Nimrata Randhawa, the daughter of Sikh immigrants will one day pass away to be remembered by her adopted name, Nikki Haley, hiding her Indian heritage. Razan will be remembered for her selfless volunteering while Haley will be remembered for her astonishing role, supporting and shielding the world’s only apartheid state.

Razan had little power to change the dynamics and bring peace to the holy land, while Haley, from one of the most powerful offices in world politics, could have helped protect Palestinians and bring peace to the region. If only Razan had such a high profile office, the world would be a better place.

Rest in peace Razan Al-Najar, you are worth more than a million Nikki Haleys.

Revelations on the use of torture by US intelligence personnel during the George W Bush presidency have been described as one of the “darkest chapters” in US history. 

Not only did it erode whatever moral authority the US claimed to have had during the first decade of the “War on Terror,” but the egregious mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca also helped to give birth to the self-proclaimed Islamic State and to re-energise the global jihad movement.

You’d be mistaken, however, if you believed this nefarious chapter in US history started and ended with the Bush administration – and given that the Republican-controlled Congress has voted to probe whether US troops resorted to torture as part of their interrogation of prisoners in Yemen, you can be sure there is still much to learn.

Secret network of prisons

The measure, adopted on Thursday in a unanimous vote, calls on Defence Secretary James Mattis to investigate whether US military personnel or their allies were involved in torturing detainees in Yemen – no doubt a response to an Associated Press investigation, which revealed that hundreds of men detained in the hunt for al-Qaeda fighters disappeared into a secret network of prisons in southern Yemen.

Detainees described “being crammed into shipping containers smeared with faeces and blindfolded for weeks on end” and being subjected to “the grill,” in which victims were tied to a metal rod and spun above a fire, much like a spit roast.

According to the AP investigation, at least 18 clandestine lockups have been set up at a range of sites across southern Yemen by the United Arab Emirates and/or Yemeni forces, including military bases, private villas, seaports and even a nightclub. While senior US defence officials have acknowledged that American military personnel have been involved in the interrogation process at these secret prisons, they have denied participating in the torture of detainees or any knowledge of human rights abuses.

The Pentagon has now been directed by the US Congress to investigate the veracity of these denials, at the same time as these lawmakers affirmed the nomination of Gina Haspel as CIA director and Mike Pompeo as secretary of state, with the former overseeing the CIA’s torture programme under the Bush administration and the latter advocating for it. Hypocrisy, as they say, knows no bounds.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the use of torture by the United States is far deeper, more widespread and more systemic than what has already been publicly acknowledged, as illustrated through the April release of published testimony and documents by the UK-based civil rights advocacy group CAGE, alleging that FBI interrogators – including Ali Soufan, a central character in the Looming Tower television series – tortured Qatari detainee Ali al-Marri (image below) on US soil.

Simulating suffocation

Image result for Ali al-Marri

When I interviewed Marri, he described how US interrogators tortured him using what is known as “dry-boarding,” an enhanced interrogation technique in which interrogators ram a cloth down the subject’s throat and seal the mouth shut with duct tape to simulate suffocation.

“They forced my head to look up, and when I looked up, I closed my eyes. At that moment, Ali Soufan brought the socks, put his hand on my jaw, forced me to open my mouth. He put the socks in, closed my mouth, and then Ramos [FBI interrogator] taped my mouth this way, vertically and horizontally, and then I started choking.”

Marri continued:

“Initially, Soufan played the good cop routine with me, bringing me Arabic food and pizza, and telling me that speaking to him was the best way for me to get back to my family. But then he noticed it was not working, playing the good cop, and then he threatened to have me raped by gays in the US military, and for my wife to be raped in front of me and my children.”

Americans display a permissive attitude towards the use of torture, as evidenced by a 2016 Reuters poll that found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists is justifiable – a number that skyrockets to 82 percent among Republican voters. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to assume that overwhelming public support for torture – underwritten by President Donald Trump‘s advocacy for it – is translating to the use of torture behind closed doors.

Outsourcing dirty work

Others contend, however, that even if the US is carrying out interrogations in compliance with international law and human rights conventions, there is evidence to suggest it continues to outsource its dirty work to allies, much as it did in the early years after the 9/11 attacks.

“What the US has done is that they basically externalised this to surrogates, mostly the United Arab Emirates – but even the UAE has externalised this burden to local groups, so control and oversight, as well as the attribution to the US directly or indirectly, will be very difficult,” Andreas Krieg, assistant professor at King’s College London, said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

Moreover, a UN panel of experts affirmed the findings of the AP investigation, accusing the UAE – a staunch US ally – of carrying out torture, including electrocution, beatings and worse.

It will now be up to the Pentagon to determine the extent of US involvement in the use of torture in Yemen – but at the very least, it’s safe to presume we haven’t heard the last on this ugly chapter in American history.

*

CJ Werleman is an opinion writer for Salon, Alternet, and the author of Crucifying America and God Hates You. Hate Him Back. Follow him on Twitter: @cjwerleman

Featured image is from the author.

Previous reports that the United States is protecting and harboring ISIS near its positions in al-Tanf have been given even more credence with the recent statements of the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov.

“We have plenty of reports about strange things happening in the Al-Tanf area,” Sergei Lavrov said on Monday. “This area has no particular military value in terms of fighting terrorism. And in practical terms, we see a rise of presence in the region of militant groups, including those we believe to be connected with Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in this or that way, including in the Rukban refugee camp.”

“This zone was created under manufactured justification with no military necessity,” he said. “If [the Americans] are arriving at the same conclusions, I expect this to translate into a practical implementation.”

Lavrov pointed out that, while he saw no indications that the U.S. was preparing to withdraw from Tanf, he would welcome their doing so.

Back on March 3, the Russian Defense Minister, Alexander Fomin, said that the United States was using its Special Forces operatives based in al-Tanf near the Iraqi border to create a “reserve for terrorists.”

As al-Masdar News writes,

Despite repeated promises to fully withdraw from their garrison at Al-Tanf, US special forces remain embedded throughout a 55 kilometer by 55 kilometer area throughout the region with recent reports suggesting that an additional six hundred American operatives are to be moved there.

Syrian pro-government forces who attempt to enter the US security perimeter near Al-Tanf are subject to airstrikes by coalition warplanes.

The Russian Ministry of Defense called out the US base as a “black hole” region that terrorists were able to use as their own base. The RT report from October, 2017 states,

The 100km area around the US Al-Tanf base near the Syrian-Jordanian border has become a “black hole” which ISIS terrorists use to carry out attacks against Syrian troops and civilians, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The base, set up by the US in April 2017 near the border town of Al-Tanf, is becoming a problem for Syrian troops combatting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists in Deir ez-Zor province, the statement says.

“Unlawful establishment by the US of this military base on Syria-Jordan border in April this year has been publicly justified by ‘the need to conduct operations against IS,’” the statement reads.

However, “there were no reports of a single American operation against Islamic State during the six months of its existence,” the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“Though the Pentagon repeatedly claimed that the base is used to train the so-called ‘New Syrian Army’ by the coalition instructors from the US, the UK and Norway,” it has become “a 100-kilometer black hole” on the Syria-Jordan border, the statement added.
The ministry also accused the US of not letting humanitarian convoys through the area to reach the Rukban refugee camp, which is located close to the base.

The camp is reportedly hosting around 60,000 women and children from Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.

The refugees in Rukban serve as a “human shield” for the American base, the ministry’s spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said.

bbc british special forces

On August 8, 2016 the BBC published photographs and reported on yet another illegal incursion into Syria by Western NATO forces and yet another violation of Syrian national sovereignty by the U.K. This time, the photographs showed British Special Forces operating on the ground inside Syria in al-Tanf, near the Syrian-Iraq border, an area that is also near the Jordanian border.

The pictures themselves date back to June of this 2016 and appear to have been taken shortly after a battle at al-Tanf between the New Syrian Army and ISIS, both Western-backed terrorist organizations. The British soldiers were photographed allegedly setting up a perimeter in order to guard the NSA base from further incursion by ISIS.

According to eyewitnesses, they were there in a defensive role. But they are carrying an arsenal of equipment including sniper rifles, heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles.

If IS attacked again they would have been able to put up a considerable fight.

A New Syrian Army’s spokesman refused to comment on the pictures of the special forces, but acknowledged their help.

He said: “We are receiving special forces training from our British and American partners. We’re also getting weapons and equipment from the Pentagon as well as complete air support.”

Kareem Shaheen and Ewan McAskill of The Guardian added more detail in their own report published on August 9, 2016. They wrote,

It is believed to be the first time British forces have been photographed operating inside Syria, where they are engaged in relatively small numbers in wide-ranging roles that include surveillance, advisory and combat.

The images depict British special forces sitting on Thalab long-range patrol vehicles as they move around the perimeter of a rebel base close to the Syria-Iraq border.

The Thalab (Fox) vehicles are essentially modified, militarised and upgraded Toyota 4x4s used for long distance reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which were developed jointly in the middle of the last decade by a state-backed defence company in Jordan and the UK company Jankel.

The vehicle, which has mounted weaponry and is often used for border patrols, has been primarily used by Jordanian special forces.

Al-Tanf, where the vehicles were reportedly photographed, is a border crossing between Syria and Iraq that had been under Isis control, and is also not far from the Jordanian border. It is unclear how many Nato countries have deployed the modified trucks, though Belgium ordered a shipment of modified Fox vehicles earlier this year.

The images seem to show British forces securing the perimeter of the rebel base following an attack by Isis, according to the BBC. The soldiers can be seen carrying anti-tank missiles, sniper rifles and other heavy artillery.

The New Syrian Army is designated as a “moderate” terrorist organization and fights under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army, another Western-backed “moderate” operation that has committed innumerable horrific acts of violence and atrocities all throughout the Syrian crisis. It should be noted that the terrorist group that beheaded a young childon camera weeks ago, Nour al-Din al-Zenghi, was also considered a “moderate” organization and one that had been “vetted” by the U.S. State Department as worthy of receiving TOW missiles. As Michael Uhler of SouthFront describes the NSA,

Unlike the clear knowledge surrounding American–YPG relations of involvement, much less is known about US ties to the groups operating in the deserts of southern Syria. Two important groups operating in this area are the ‘Forces of the Martyr Ahmad al-Abdo’ (Arabic: قوات الشهيد احمد العبده) and the ‘New Syrian Army’ (NSyA) (Arabic: جيش سوريا الجديد). Although both of the aforementioned groups receive support from the US, the level of involvement differs. The partnership between America and the NSyA can be regarded as tighter than that of the YPG. Even though the NSyA could arguably be one of the smallest groups comprised under the so-called ‘FSA’, the level of training, coordination and equipment surpasses most other groups. Rumors have circulated indicating the possibility of Jordanian special forces within its contingent. (The NSyA has coordinated with the Iraqi government on multiple occasions surrounding the Syrian–Iraqi border). King Abdullah II of Jordan revealed earlier this year that Jordanian special forces were indeed participating with rebels in this area.

The sudden appearance of the NSyA occurred on November 15th, 2015. The NSyA launched its first operation on al-Tanf, which resulted in an attack on ammunition storehouses as well as on a bomb factory. Not much more information other than this video has been released about this raid. Bolstered by Jordan and America, the degree of cooperation can be seen in the group’s operational security (OPSEC). Quite different from the groups which fall under the umbrella of the FSA, the NSyA appears to be very professional and keen on keeping any sort of identification to a minimum.

It is thus noteworthy that a group working so close with UK Special Forces and, perhaps, Jordanian Special Forces would also be the group that is so keen on keeping the identities of its fighters secret. While this may simply be a result of better training by Western Special Forces (despite relatively poor battlefield performance), many might be caused to wonder whether or not the Special Forces troops themselves make up the ranks of the group, making privacy a necessity not present with other terrorist groups across the country.

It is also worth noting that the photographs were taken in June, the same general time frame as when the United States and Russian jets nearly clashed in the skies above al-Tanf.

“The mid-air confrontation occurred between F/A-18 fighters scrambled by the Pentagon and several SU-34s, Moscow’s most advanced bombers,” Ted Thornhill wrote for the Daily Mail. “The Russian jets had struck a 200-strong garrison of Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State in At-Tanf, near the Jordanian border.”

The Russian military did not deny the bombing raid but it did deny that it targeted Western-backed terrorists (i.e. terrorists publicly claimed by the United States), making the argument that the United States did not make the positions of its proxy terrorists known to the Russian Air Force. Russian Major General Igor Konashenkov, Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, claimed the air strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from the areas the U.S. had designated as being “controlled by legitimate opposition forces.”

It was not made clear which terrorist organization was being bombed specifically but, given the time frame and location, it is reasonable to wonder whether or not the NSA was the actual target of the Russian bombers and the reason the bombing mission provoked such a strong response from the U.S.

Screenshot from NBC News

There is also the question of the Rukban refugee camp which rests on the Jordanian-Syrian border, housing up to 80,000 internally displaced people. The camp is located not far from the US base in Tanf and the US has long hampered any UN and other humanitarian aid organizations’ aid deliveries from being made to the camp. It has also long been known that thousands of people in Rukban are “militants.” In fact, the ISIS presence in Rukban is so great that Jordan will not even use helicopters to deliver aid out of fear of being shot down by ISIS forces inhabiting it.

So what is the US hiding? Why not assist the UN in bringing aid to the people who are suffering?

Some speculate that the Rukban camp is both a “human shield” for America’s Tanf base. Others, however, suggest that the camp is a jihadist farm, where American forces can select and house terrorists to be trained at the US base and subsequently be let loose against the Syrian government or be used as an excuse to extend the American occupation further.

But are those terrorists ISIS proper or the New Syrian Army? The truth is that it doesn’t really matter. Names of terrorist groups are more important to the terrorists themselves and for Western propaganda purposes than to anyone or for anything else. Names like ISIS are used primarily for political reasons and can be changed at will. What was ISIS yesterday may very well be New Syrian Army today. If you’re a Syrian civilian, however, they look exactly alike in every facet.

Regardless, what is known for certain is that both the United States and the U.K. have egregiously violated Syrian national sovereignty and are working alongside terrorists for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. For this claim, no speculation is necessary.

Lavrov’s statement, while tempered, shows that the Russians are becoming increasingly aware or, at least, increasingly willing to speak out about American collusion and direction of terrorist organizations in a public forum.

*

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Featured image is from the author.

 

Featured image: The body of Razan al-Najjar is carried through to her funeral in Khan Younis, Southern Gaza Strip

Israeli warplanes blitzed the Gaza Strip today as the country continued to punish Palestinians for daring to hold peaceful demonstrations near the fence that seals off the territory.

The bombings came just hours after thousands of Gazans attended the funeral of 21-year-old paramedic Razan al-Najjar, shot in the chest by Israeli soldiers as she tended to wounded protesters on Friday near Khan Yunis.

Mourners waved Palestinian flags and chanted demands for her killer to be brought to justice.

Witnesses said that Ms Najjar was 100 metres away from the fence and was wearing her white paramedic’s uniform when an Israeli sniper shot her in the heart.

Her father Ashraf carried her uniform, soaked in blood, at the funeral.

Health Ministry officials said that 100 people were wounded by Israeli soldiers on Friday, including 40 shot with live bullets.

Four other paramedics were wounded as they tried to help people being shot at and tear gassed by the troops.

Ms Najjar’s mother Sabreen told the Middle East Eye website that the Israelis “know Razan, they know she is a paramedic, she has been helping treat wounds since March 30,” when the Great March of Return protests began.

“My daughter was a target for the Israeli snipers … it was not a random bullet,” she said.

Over 120 Palestinians have been killed and 13,000 injured by Israel since the peaceful demonstrations began, mostly shot to death. Ms Najjar is the second paramedic to be killed, after Moussa Abu Hassanein.

Another protester, 30-year-old Mohammad Naeem Hamada, died of his wounds yesterday evening after being shot by Israeli soldiers in the week.

On Friday evening, the United States vetoed a UN security council resolution that condemned the Israeli slaughter, while Britain abstained.

The draft resolution had called on UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres to find “ways and means for ensuring the safety, protection and wellbeing of the Palestinian civilian population.”

Palestinian Fatah faction spokesman Osama al-Qawasmi condemned the “shameful and immoral” action of the US, which gives Israel $4 billion a year in military aid.

• Israeli forces have joined Nato militaries in the Western alliance’s giant annual exercises in eastern Europe. The “Saber Strike” wargames, involving 18,000 troops, are taking place in the Baltic states and Poland.

Israeli Oncologists’ Letter: Let Gaza Cancer Patients Out!

June 4th, 2018 by Physicians For Human Rights In Israel

Featured image: A Patient at Erez Checkpoint. Photo: ActiveStills

Over the past year, Israel has significantly delayed the urgent treatment of at least 45 cancer patients from the Gaza Strip. On Monday, a special hearing will be held in the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality on the situation of Gazan women under the closure policy.

Today (Sunday), over thirty oncology specialists from Israeli hospitals took the unusual step of calling upon the Ministry of Health and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (CGAT) to allow women cancer patients form the Gaza Strip to travel for urgent and lifesaving treatments in hospitals in Israel and the West Bank. The signatories include ward directors and senior physicians such as President of Oncology Institute in Sheba Medical Center Prof. Bella Kaufman, Head of the Radiotherapy Department at Beilinson Prof. Eyal Fenig, Director of the Breast Cancer Unit at Assaf HaRofeh Dr. Ella Evron, Head of the Oncology Department in Assuta Haifa Dr. Abed Agbarya, and others.

The physicians have decided to act given the growing difficulties they have been experiencing over the past year in providing continuous treatment to cancer patients arriving at their clinics from the Gaza Strip. This is due to the tightening of the Israeli exit permit policy with regard to Gazan cancer patients. According to data provided by Physicians for Human Rights, over the past year medical treatment has been significantly delayed for at least 45 women cancer patients from Gaza. Some were delayed for six months and even more, and their exit was made possible only thanks to public pressure on the authorities. Today, the exit of fourteen cancer patients from Gaza is prevented by the CGAT at Erez Crossing. Seven of these women have breast cancer, three have thyroid cancer and three others have tumors in their spine, lungs and kidneys.

In their letter, the doctors wrote:

“Undoubtedly, the likelihood of cure and the ability to relive the suffering of cancer patients are higher the sooner diagnosis and treatment are provided. On the other hand, there is no doubt that any delay in diagnosis and treatment could lead to the exacerbation of the disease and even death, which are preventable”.

The signatories concluded that “there is no justification in delaying the patients’ requests for long months, since every delay has fateful consequences for their chances to recover and survive”.

The letter coincides with the convening of a special hearing of the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality, chaired by MK Aida Touma-Suleiman, to discuss the situation of women in Gaza under the ongoing closure on the Gaza Strip. The hearing has been initiated by Touma-Suleiman following hundreds of complaints submitted to her office over the past year on the refusal of Israeli authorities to allow freedom of movement for Gazan women for health, studies and work purposes.

Prof. Bella Kaufman, President of Oncology Institute in Sheba Medical Center and Physicians for Human Rights board member:

“Precisely given the recent cycle of violence on the border with Gaza, the story of the cancer patients demonstrates the extent to which Israel’s policy with regard to the Palestinian population in the Strip breaks new records of apathy. The women cancer patients require immediate treatment, often to save their lives, and denying them that treatment is unreasonable according to any ethical, humanitarian or international standard- whether this is done due to bureaucratic excuses of which there is never shortage, or ‘security’ pretexts that are always readily available. Israel must show meet its fundamental moral commitment and allow these patients to leave Gaza immediately for medical treatment”.

American aerospace contractor and maker of the F-35 stealth fighter jet, Lockheed Martin, is opening a “one of a kind” science-focused preschool in Jerusalem, with plans to serve Israeli children as young as five, according to a press release from Jerusalem’s municipality.

In May of this year, an Israeli military official openly bragged that

“Israel was the first regime in the world to have used the U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter jets in attack mode.”

In December of 2016, Israel received the first two F-35s out of the 50 ordered from the United States.

Lockheed Martin invested over $1 billion in Israel between 2010 and 2017.

The new preschool will belong to a larger Lockheed Martin project in Israel that has already seen schools open in Be’er Sheva and Kiryat Malachi. The Kiryat Menachem neighborhood will be home to Jerusalem’s first location, which will serve immigrants, including those of Soviet and Ethiopian backgrounds. While all three locations are in socioeconomically weak areas, the schools have yet to serve Arab students.

The newest school will provide preschool and kindergarten students with computers and other state-of-the-art technology in an effort to “foster and boost advanced technology.” Expected to cost $250,000 and to begin operating during the 2018/2019 school year, the school will be the first of its kind to open in Jerusalem. Lockheed Martin, the Rashi Foundation, and the Jerusalem municipality will foot the bill for the school.

Fired up by fingerpaint

Lockheed Martin’s Israel CEO, Joshua Shani, had this to say of MadaKids, the corporation’s Israeli STEM school network:

Our preschools are an Israeli innovation in every respect, and already delegations have arrived from other countries, like Korea and Germany, that are thinking of going in a similar direction.”

Shani has admitted that a partnership between a school and a weapons manufacturer “isn’t logical” but justified his company’s contributions to MadaKids by saying:

[T]he moment a commercial company wants to contribute to the community, it becomes worthwhile. We could have set up a research institute on military aviation worldwide, but we went in the direction of education because that’s what fires us up.”

In addition to opening schools, the company has also sponsored activities for older students, including Lego competitions and “cyber summer camps” in partnership with the Israel Defense Forces Cyber Command, in what can only be seen as an effort to normalize the war machine.

Israel is a worldwide leader in weapons sales, marketing its wares as “combat tested” after using them on Palestinians, most frequently in the Gaza Strip. Residents of Gaza are trapped in what is called the world’s largest open-air prison, where they are subjected to Israeli abuses, including a mind-boggling use of high tech weaponry and bombs.

While such a country’s ongoing partnership with Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest manufacturer of weapons, seems almost natural, the company has ingrained itself in the very fabric of education across the globe, most notably in the United States. With programs for kids like Lockheed Martin Engineering Day, National Discovery Education Lockheed Martin Beyond Challenge, and Lockheed Martin Video Challenge, as well as the Lockheed Martin Teacher Award, the weapons giant’s interest in education is curious.

The fact that, on the one hand, Lockheed Martin appears invested in childhood education and, on the other hand, produces weapons that murder and maim countless people — while partnering with Israel, a major abuser of international human rights law — is a lesson in itself. It might, in fact, be seen as highly educational on the subject of how the modern world works.

*

Emma Fiala is MPN’s Editorial Assistant and social media guru. She is also a documentary photographer, mom of two, and an independent journalist. Her stories have been featured on MintPress News, the Anti-Media, Media Roots, and Steemit. Find her on Twitter.

The Mises Institute asked the question last September: “What indications are there that the world is turning its back on the US dollar?” – It did, in fact, answer that question (below), but here are just some of the more recent moves that just six months ago would have seemed unlikely.

We reported on March 26 this year that China had finally launched a yuan-dominated oil futures contract after nearly a dozen false starts over a decade. With that approval, the “petroyuan” became real and China set out to challenge the “petrodollar” for dominance.

Russia was already transacting oil in rubles and been working up those trades since 2015 as a result of sanctions imposed by the West.

The EU has made arrangements recently to settle Iranian oil trades in euros as a direct result of Washington withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.

Then, just last week we reported that India has agreed a deal to pay for Iranian oil in rupees as the two countries seek to bypass the US economic pressure on Tehran.

We also highlighted in our report that China is the world’s biggest buyer of oil, America is the second and India is the third. Whilst the USA buys about $110 billion of oil each year – China and India combined – buys nearly $200 billion. The EU including Britain buys another $200 billion.

Now, it is reported in the New China Daily that:

There has been a general consensus among some eastern and southern African countries that there should be more usage of the Chinese yuan in the African region because of China’s growing influence in business and trade.

Executive director of the Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa (MEFMI) Caleb Fundanga said a forum for financial experts earlier in the week had agreed that there was need to use the Chinese yuan as a reserve currency because China was playing an active role in their economies.

The forum was attended by deputy central bank governors and deputy permanent secretaries of finance from 14 countries that fall under MEFMI.

The general conclusion is that we should use the yuan more because its time has come. We are doing more business (with China) so it’s natural that we use the currency of the country with which we are trading.

“Just the way we have been using the (U.S.) dollar and the Euro, we want to use the Chinese currency more in our transactions because it is to our benefit,” Fundanga said.

He also said use of the yuan could protect the region from currency volatilities. It was also agreed that the use of the yuan would came in handy because China was giving loans to the region and other African countries.

Fundanga said there was also discussion on possible currency swaps the same as what China had achieved with Nigeria, where Nigerians travelling to China could easily access the yuan from their local banks.

MEFMI argues that the bulk of reserves for most countries in the region are invested in U.S. dollars, yet their composition has not kept pace with the large shifts in the world economy. This is particularly so since China and India continue to shape global economic trends as they remain major trade partners for the region.

MEFMI countries comprise Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

It is clear that de-dollarisation is escalating for one reason or another and as a result, America is in a much weaker position to demand USD trades, which it has done for decades. And just how important are oil trades in USDs?

Back to the Mises Institute.

The mechanism underlying today’s “dollar standard” is widely known and the term “petrodollar” describes it well. This system is based on an informal agreement the US and Saudi Arabia arrived at in the mid-1970s. The result of this deal: Oil, and consequently all other important commodities, is traded in US dollars — and only in US dollars. Oil producers then “recycle” these “petrodollars” into US treasuries. This circular flow of dollars has enabled the US to pile up a towering mountain of debt of nearly $20 trillion — without having to worry about its own financial stability. At least, until now.”

The process of moving away from the dollar — prepared by Europe and triggered by China and Russia — can no longer be stopped.”

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Amazon Workers Organize. Inhumane Work Hours in Italy

June 4th, 2018 by UNI Global Union

First-ever Agreement Between Amazon and Unions Halts Inhumane Work Hours in Italy

by UNI Global Union

Amazon employees in Italy have made history. Workers announced on May 23rd the first-ever direct agreement between unions and the company anywhere in the world. The Italian agreement tackles inhumane scheduling, one of the core labour problems at Amazon fulfillment centres globally.

The deal, which is supplementary to the nationwide sectoral collective labour agreement, ensures fairness in scheduling through reductions in mandatory night shifts and distributing weekend work in a just way. Amazon is notorious for long hours, punishing quotas, and little break time during shifts. In some facilities, workers say they do not have time to even use the restroom.

Italian union Filcams Cgil Nazionale played a leading role in the negotiations.

“We are pleased with this result which is currently unique in Europe,” said Massimo Mensi, a leader in Filcams Cgil Nazionale’s Amazon campaign. “We hope it will pave the way for many other negotiations in all the countries where Amazon has its operations.”

“The agreement provides that night work is initially carried out only by voluntary employees, providing, among other things, an increase of 25 per cent of the compensation under the employment contract,” Mensi continued.

Workers are guaranteed four consecutive free weekends every eight weeks and shifts alternate between Saturdays and Sundays.

International Support

The win in Italy comes after months of protests and organizing by workers. With UNI’s help, Italian and German workers coordinated strike activity in November 2017.

“This deal is important in light of the strikes and protests of last November, when on Black Friday many employees demanded reasonable workloads and less of an impact on their family life. This agreement that can now pave the way for new corporate relationships on issues of health and safety of the workplace,” said Maria Grazia Gabrielli, General Secretary of Filcams Cgil Nazionale.

The agreement, approved by a large majority of voting workers, will run for one year starting June 17, and the union will closely monitor the results.

“It’s clear that Amazon must negotiate with workers who have organized into unions, and with Amazon’s labour practices under fire throughout Europe and the U.S., the agreement will be the first of many that will reform the company’s model of exploitative labour relations,” said Mathias Bolton, Head of UNI Commerce.

UNI Global Union is working to build alliances between national unions who represent Amazon workers. Currently, its Amazon Worker Alliance is composed of unions from countries including the USA, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Czech Republic.

This article first published on the uniglobalunion.org website.

***

Amazon Bows to the Unions: New Shifts and Higher Wages

by Antonio Sciotto

For the first time in Europe, the e-commerce multinational Amazon signed a contract with the unions regarding the organization of work shifts. This ‘historic’ event – as FILCAMS CGIL, CISL and FISASCAT UILTUCS have called it – took place at the large shipment hub of Castel San Giovanni (Piacenza region), where, on Black Friday last year, employees were involved in a large-scale and unprecedented protest.

The workers for the U.S. giant, hired legally under the national contract for the logistics field, have complained they were being heavily tested by the tough shifts and the amount of tasks and the pace required by the e-commerce chain. They have gone on strike several times, for the first time on Black Friday at the end of November, the busiest sales day of the year, asking for a supplementary contract that would render their collective contract more adequate for the specific type of work that they perform for the internet-based multinational.

An agreement was reached, and the trade unions put it to a referendum. According to them, around 500 workers voted (approximately one-third of the workers for Amazon’s regional hub in Piacenza), and the result was over 68 per cent ‘Yes’.

The Details

This agreement, as Massimo Mensi of FILCAMS CGIL explained, “stipulates that night work will initially be performed only by employees who agree to this on a voluntary basis, and who will benefit, among other things, from a 25 per cent increase in the hourly rate. Only in the cases when all the required work is not covered by this system, the company will organize an overall shift system involving all workers.” In addition, the union representative added, “in dividing the work to be performed on weekends, the shifts will be calculated on the basis of a period of eight weeks, with four consecutive free weekends and an alternation between Saturday and Sunday shifts for the rest.”

FISASCAT CISL had further details to mention:

“The agreement,” they said in a statement, “will enter into force for 12 months, starting on June 17, and involves the replacement of the fixed afternoon and night shifts and the redefinition of the shift system, based on three time slots for a total of 40 hours of work during five days per week. All 1,656 direct employees will rotate weekly between two shifts, from 7:00 to 15:00 and from 15:30 to 23:30, throughout the year; the night shift – set up on a fixed schedule, from 20:00 to 4:00 from January to August and from 23:30 to 7:30 from September to mid-November and from mid-November to December – will be manned only by the workers who voluntarily choose it, who will receive a pay increase of 25 per cent. When there are not enough such workers to fulfill the company’s requirements, an overall rotation system in three shifts will be implemented.”

Up to now, the pay increase for night work in the collective contract was just 15 per cent, and the agreed-upon increase to 25 per cent will lead to a monthly raise estimated at between 70 to 97 euros on hand. From mid-November to December, it will be possible for the company to set one day of overtime per week, alternating between Saturdays and Sundays, in order to cope with the peak delivery volumes during the Christmas period.

According to the company, however, “this does not set a precedent” regarding the organization of work – Amazon said in a statement.

“In every country we operate, we talk with the workers’ representatives. We firmly believe that having a conversation and a direct relationship with employees is the most effective way to answer their needs.” Amazon “wants to be a fair and responsible employer, always willing to negotiate, which is distinctive of our values,” said the e-commerce giant. “As we continue to grow, we must ensure that the work shifts can meet the needs of employees, as well as meet customer expectations.”

This article first published on the website of Il Global.Manifesto

Our thanks to Socialist Project

*

UNI Global Union, based in Nyon, Switzerland, represents more than 20 million workers from over 900 trade unions in the fastest growing sectors in the world – skills and services.

Antonio Sciotto writes for the website Il Manifesto.

All images in this article are from The Bullet.

Light needs to be shed on the horrifying conditions of asylum seekers and the issue of “missing” immigrant children who are in custody of the U.S. government. A discussion or dialogue needs to take place by democratic-minded people and peace and justice activists on how to organize to bring an end to the brutality against the undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and of course their children. The dire situation of a desperate people who have escaped gang violence in their home countries (mostly from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala) ending up confined in the hellish U.S. detention centers is getting worse. Among them, the voiceless and powerless children are the most ill-treated ones. The shocking abusive treatment of these children in the custody of the U.S. government authorities and their inhumane conditions are ongoing but hidden from the American people.

Recently Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary at Health and Human Services (HHS) for Children and Families told a Senate subcommittee that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has lost track of almost 1,500 unaccompanied immigrant children who were placed in foster care.

This admission unwrapped years of cruel and illegal conduct by the Obama administration which has been continued by the Trump administration. The “missing children” news was already a damaging factor to the Democratic Party since it was their policy to release the unaccompanied immigrant children to the relatives, sponsors or foster families. However it got worse when Jon Favreau (Mr. Obama’s speechwriter) and other Democratic Party functionaries posted a 2014 photo showing immigrant kids laying in cages as evidence of today’s Trump “Concentration Camp”. Naturally President Trump immediately tweeted and reminded his critics that the “steel cage” and photos belong to Mr. Obama.

By now, the secret was out and the American people were able to see a glimpse of the barbaric treatment of innocent migrated children in the U.S. detention facilities. This was an embarrassment to all Democrats who portrayed themselves as the true defenders and protectors of immigrants. They desperately gave all kinds of excuses to correct their mistakes but mainly to cover up the past. Meanwhile the fascistic-minded President Trump and his Attorney General announced their own malicious and illegal “Zero Tolerance” policy. This policy declares that asylum seekers will be treated as criminal because they have violated the U.S. laws of crossing the borders illegally, therefore they were to be detained separately without their children.

“If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you” said Mr. Sessions during a press conference at the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego.

The Democratic Party operatives upon this announcement quickly strategized and found the opportunity to narrow down the discussion only to the issue of the separation of the children of the asylum seekers from their parents. They literally asked their supporters to STOP talking about the “misinterpreted missing children” and just concentrate on the “separation” issue.

Josie Duffy Rice, a recognized lawyer and journalist in her “public service announcement” said:

“PLEASE STOP SHARING THAT STORY ABOUT 1500 KIDS MISSING…. There are two things going on. 1) HHS doesn’t know where 1500 unaccompanied minors are. 2) We are separating parents and children at the border.”  She assured us that the children “aren’t missing. Some unanswered phone calls does not a missing child make”. She also said if the released children “are no longer ORR’s responsibility or problem. THIS IS A GOOD THING. … ORR is basically a jailer. Do you want the jail keeping track of where every former inmate is?”

Unfortunately this twisted logic was effective and the issue of the “missing children” was dropped. Most immigrant advocates sympathetic to the Democratic Party, rallied, organized meetings and tweeted around the question of “separation” as the major immigration problem and proposed by voting for the “right” candidates (Democratic Party candidates) in coming elections, there is a chance to fix the awful immigration problems.

The fact is that both issues of the “missing children” and “separation” of children from parents actually are two ends of one terrifying experience for migrants and Asylum seekers. The independent peace and justice activists don’t separate these two issues, since these are interlinked problems. When a frightened child forcefully is separated from the arms of her or his crying mother, that child immediately is dealt with as an unaccompanied child and generally after days of being detained under the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are put in facilities under the supervision of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) -a division of Health and Human Services.

Jennifer Podkul, director of policy at Kids in Need of Defense, that advocates for the rights of unaccompanied minors in the US says:

“When they apprehend the parent, he or she goes over to the US Marshals, and the government has essentially created an unaccompanied minor [by separating the child]. They are treated just like any child who arrives by themselves. So it was unaccompanied minors that HHS didn’t make contact with over the phone, and now they’re putting an incredible burden on HHS by adding 700 new unaccompanied children to that population. … Right now, under this administration, there is a climate of fear. Parents and families that are undocumented might be scared to pick up the phone. The administration has specifically targeted sponsors of unaccompanied minors. They did raids against them last year. ”

The fact that HHS is overwhelmed with the new situation and at the same time refuses to be legally responsible for the “missing children” is another reason to make sure that the children are safe after they are released to sponsors and do not become missing numbers and have to live in the shadows without any rights and vulnerable to all kind of unimaginable abuses.  No one wants to see the children end up in the hands of the human traffickers as it happened during Mr. Obama administration. Ron Nixon of the New York Times reports:

“Two years ago [2016] the subcommittee released a report detailing how health and human services officials placed eight children with human traffickers who forced the minors to work on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio. The report found that department officials had failed to establish procedures to protect the unaccompanied minors, such as conducting sufficient background checks on potential sponsors and following up with sponsors. As a result, the children were turned over to the people who contracted them out to the egg farm. … Allison E. Herre, a lawyer with Catholic Charities of Southwestern Ohio, said she had seen sponsors who forced the children to work instead of attending school and who failed to ensure that the children attended their court proceedings.”

In the Trump anti-immigrant era the situation is getting worse. There are many informative articles that are available on social media to help us understand the barbaric treatments that migrants are facing today. One of the MUST read articles is the “Hidden Horrors of ‘Zero Tolerance’ — Mass Trials and Children Taken From Their Parents” article by Debbie Nathan published by the Intercept.  She masterfully describes the strange procedures in the Federal Courthouse, Pecos, Texas; which are unusual and frightening. She writes:

“The courtroom was filled with exhausted immigrants, with hands cuffed and shackled to their waists, their legs in chains — dozens of defendants stumbling, shuffling, clanking, and clanging in tandem. ‘Raise your right hand,’ [Judge Ronald G.] Morgan commanded as a translator spoke Spanish into their headphones. The shackled defendants struggled to comply. … A young father then said he’d been separated from his 6-year-old and was very worried. … One woman who spoke about her children in open court was from Honduras. ‘Is my little girl going to go with me when I get deported?’ she asked [Judge] Morgan.”

Unfortunately, the world is witnessing many atrocities and injustices against the children from Palestine and Yemen to the Rohingan children in Myanmar and elsewhere; however today the inhumane treatments of the migrants and their children in the U.S. is very alarming for Americans democratic values. As Martin Luther King Jr. said:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

True peace and justice activists defend the rights of migrants and their children independent of the Democratic and Republican Party. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) May 2018 report*: “Neglect and Abuse of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children by U.S. Customs and Border Protection” is helpful to understand how important it is to bring an end to the barbaric policies of the Democratic and Republican Parties against migrant and their children as soon as possible. In part the report reads:

“A 16-year-old minor in CBP custody with her infant reported that a Border Patrol agent stood near the door of her holding cell and told her, in Spanish, ‘right now, we close the door, we rape you and fuck you.’ … Another minor reported that after being apprehended by Border Patrol agents, she was put into a room for questioning. Then four agents came into the room, removed their name badges, and threatened to send her to a separate building with another agent. … The agents informed her that they would not be responsible for  whatever  happened  to  her  there,  and  the  young  woman  understood  them  to  be  threatening  her.”

*

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

Note:

*The Intercept

Italy: The Center Cannot Hold

June 4th, 2018 by Diana Johnstone

The traditional governing parties, center “left” and center “right” all follow the same neoliberal policies and constitute the self-designated “center.” Mainstream media enforce center right claims to authority on the base of orthodox economic expertise, while the center left derives its authority from its “values,” centered on an identity politics version of human rights. “Center” sounds so reasonable, so safe from dangerous “extremes” and unpredictable populism. Against such threats, the Center presents itself as the champion and safeguard of “democracy.”

How true is this?

World Values Survey results indicate that in Europe and the United States, people who describe themselves as “centrist” on the average have less attachment to democracy (e.g. free and fair elections) that those on the left, and even those on the far right. This is not as surprising as it may seem at first, since “centrists” are by definition attached to the status quo. In European countries, the authoritarian neoliberal “center” is institutionalized in the European Union, which imposes economic policy over the heads of the parliaments of the member countries, dictating measures which conform to the choices of Germany and northern Europe, but are increasingly disastrous for the Southern EU members.

The Rise of the Outcasts

The Centrist fear of democracy was resoundingly confirmed by March 4 legislative elections in Italy. The Center was relegated to the margins and outsiders burst in. The winner, with 32 percent of the votes, was the Five Star Movement (M5S) whose campaign “against corruption” won popular support in the impoverished South. In second place, with 17 percent, was “the League”, formerly the Northern League – that is, a party of rich north Italy chauvinists ready to secede from the “lazy good-for-nothing” south. It took almost three months for this extremely odd couple to agree to a coalition government.

The mystique of the European Union is anti-nationalist, based on the theory that “nations” are bad because they caused the devastating wars of the twentieth century, while European unification is the sole guarantee of “peace.” Convinced of their mission, the Eurocentrists have had no qualms in throwing out the baby of democratic choice along with the nationalist bathwater.

The notion that “peace” depends on “Europe” persists despite the NATO bombing of Serbia and European participation in U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, not to mention EU participation in the current major military buildup in the Baltic States against “the Russian enemy.” Indeed, thanks to NATO, the EU is gearing for a war even worse than the previous ones.

Since the “nation-state” is blamed for evil in the world, the Eurocentrists react with horror at growing demands in Member States for a return to “national sovereignty.” This, however, is a natural reaction to the economic and social disasters resulting from policies dictated by EU institutions in Brussels. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty legally bound member countries to centralized neoliberal monetarist policies; not only “socialism” became illegal – even Keynesianism was ruled out. Promised endless peace and prosperity, citizens of European countries were cajoled into giving up their sovereignty to EU institutions, and many now want it back.

Disillusioned Italy

Italian disillusion is particularly significant. Italy was an exceptionally enthusiastic founding member of the unification begun with the 1957 Treaty of Rome. And yet, Italy’s own history illustrates what can go wrong with such unification, since the 19thcentury political creation of a unified Italy centered in Turin led to the enrichment of the industrial north at the expense of southern Italy, where the splendor of Naples declined into chronic poverty, crime and corruption. Now Italy itself is “the south” in the periphery of a European Union centered around Germany.

Signing of the Rome Treaty, 1957 (Photo: European Commission)

Antagonism between northern and southern Italy has given way to a much stronger antagonism between Italy and Germany – each blaming the other for the crisis.

It is only fair to recall that Germans were very attached to their Deutsche Mark and to their own austere financial policies. Germany could only be lured into the common currency by agreeing to let the euro follow German rules. France eagerly supported this concession based on the notion that the common currency would unify Europe. It is doing quite the opposite.

Germany is a major exporting nation. Its trade with the rest of the EU is secondary. It uses the EU as its hinterland as it competes and trades globally with China, the United States and the rest of the world. The proceeds of Germany’s favorable EU trade balance is less and less invested in those countries but in Germany itself or outside the EU. In the official German view, the main function of the Southern EU members is to pay back their debts to Germany.

Meanwhile, Italy’s once flourishing industrial network has lost its competitive edge due to the euro. It cannot save its exports by devaluation, as it was accustomed to doing. Italy’s debt is now 132 percent of its GNP, whereas the Maastricht Treaty governing the monetary union puts a ceiling of 60 percent on national debt. And to continue paying the debt, public services are cut back, the middle class is impoverished, the domestic market declines and the economy gets even weaker.

This is precisely the situation that has plunged Greece into ever deepening poverty.

But Italy is not Greece. Greece is a small peripheral country, which can be pounded to death by creditors as a warning of what can happen to others. Italy, on the contrary, is too big to fail. Its collapse could bring the whole EU crashing down.

Italy’s Potential Strength Through Weakness

The traditional Italian parties had no solution beyond those that have ruined Greece: cut back social spending, impoverish workers and pensioners, and pay back the foreign banks, with interest.

The odd coalition of the League and the M5S was obliged to try something different: basically, to invest in the economy rather than abandon it to its creditors. Their program combines lower taxes with Keynesian stimulation of investment. Since the leader of the League, Matteo Salvini, and Luigi Di Maio of M5S do not like each other, they selected law professor Giuseppe Conte to be Prime Minister in their coalition cabinet. The interesting choice was that of Paolo Savona for the key post of Minister of Economy and Finance. Savona, whose long career has taken him across the summits of Italian and international finance, was certainly the most qualified choice imaginable. Savona knows everything there is to know about the Italian economy and international currency creation.

And yet, it was the appointment of this 81-year-old expert that created outrage in the Eurocenter.

Image on the right: DiMaio and Salvini: Enemies trying to rule together. (Photo: Italian Insider)

The uproar was spurred by the fact that in one of his books Savona had described the euro as “a German prison.” Savona had also said it was necessary to prepare a Plan B, to leave the euro if there is no other choice. “The alternative is to end up like Greece.”

This hint of disloyalty to the euro was totally unacceptable to the European establishment.

The Center struck back in the person of the largely figurehead President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella, who used, or misused, his unique constitutional power by refusing to approve the government. On May 28, he designated as prime minister Carlo Cottarelli of the International Monetary Fund – a man who represented everything the Italians had just voted against. Known in Italy as “Mr. Scissors” for his advocacy of drastic government spending cuts, Cottarelli was supposed to run an apolitical “technical” government until new elections could be held in the fall.

This coup against the Italian voters caused momentary rejoicing in the Authoritarian Center. The European Budget Commissioner (a German of course), Günther Oettinger, was reported to be gloating over the prospect that “the markets” (meaning the financial markets) would soon teach Italians how to vote. Italy’s economy “could be so drastically impacted,” he said, as to send a signal to voters “not to vote for populists on the right and left.”

This simply intensified Italian indignation against “German arrogance.”

Meanwhile Savona wrote a letter to President Mattarella which introduced a bit of cold reason into an increasingly hysterical situation. He reminded the president that an important meeting of EU heads of state was to be held at the end of June; without a political government, Italy would be absent from negotiations which could seal the fate of the EU. Italy’s plea for economic change could expect French support. Savona denied having called for leaving the euro; in the spirit of game strategy, he had mentioned the need for Plan B in order to strengthen one’s position before negotiations. He made it clear that his strategy was not to leave the euro but to transform it into a genuine rival to the dollar.

Germany prevents the euro from becoming ‘an essential part of foreign policy’, as the dollar is for the United States”, wrote Savona.

But change becomes necessary, as the dollar is less and less suitable for its role as world currency.

Indeed, the Italian crisis merges with a mounting trans-Atlantic crisis, as the U.S. uses sanctions as a weapon in competition with its European “partners.” The paradox is that Italy could use its very weakness to oblige Germany to reconsider its monetary policy in a moment when the German economy is also facing problems due to U.S. sanctions on deals with Russia and Iran, as well as protectionist measures. Savona’s message was that clever diplomacy could work to Italy’s advantage. In its own interest, Germany may need to accept transformation of the euro into a more proactive currency, able to defend European economies from U.S. manipulation.

Image below: Paolo Savona

It was a matter of hours before Cottarella stepped back and a new M5S-League government was formed, with Savona himself back as Minister of Relations with the European Union.

Italy’s Double Jeopardy

The new Italian cabinet sworn in on June 1 is riven with contradictions. Despite all the released anti-EU sentiment, it is definitely not an “anti-EU” government. Conte is back as prime minister. The new foreign minister, Enzo Moavero Milnesi, is a staunch pro-European. As interior minister, the northern Italy chauvinist Salvini – who doesn’t particularly care for southern Italians – will get tough with migrants. As minister of economic development M5S’ Di Maio will try to find ways to improve conditions in the southern regions that elected him. Since Salvini is the more experienced of the two, the League is likely to profit from the experiment more than the M5S.

Some Italians warn that by leaving the “German prison” Italy would simply find itself even more dependent on the United States.

One should never forget that ever since the end of World War II, Italy is an occupied country, with dozens of U.S. military bases on its territory, including air bases with nuclear weapons poised to strike the Middle East, Africa or even Russia. The Italian Constitution outlaws participation in aggressive war, and yet Italian bases are freely used by the United States to bomb whichever country it pleases, regardless of how Italians feel about it.

Worst of all, the U.S. used its Italian “NATO bases” to destroy Libya, a disaster for Italy which thereby lost a valuable trade partner and found itself inundated with African refugees and migrants. While international financial experts exhort Italy to cut government expenses, the country is obliged by NATO to spend around 13 billion euros to buy 90 U.S. F-35 fighters and to increase its military spending to around 100 million euros per day.

Italy’s economic prospects have also been badly hit by U.S.-enforced sanctions against trade with Russia and Iran, important potential energy sources.

U.S. economic aggression, in particular Trump’s rejection of the Iranian nuclear deal, is the issue with the potential to bring European leaders together at a time when they were drifting apart. But at present, the Europeans are unable to defy U.S. sanctions in punishment for trade with those countries because their international dealings are in dollars.

This has already led to the U.S. exacting billions of dollars in fines from the biggest French and German banks, the BNP and Deutsche Bank, for trading that was perfectly legal under their own laws. The French petroleum giant has been obliged to abandon contracts with Iran because 90% of its trade is in dollars, and thus vulnerable to U.S. sanctions. And that is why the idea is growing of building financial instruments around the euro that can protect European companies from U.S. retaliation.

The Disappearance of the Left

The disappearance of left political forces has been almost total in Italy. There are many reasons for this, but a curable part of the problem has been the inability of what remains of the left to face up to the two main current issues: Europe and immigration.

The left has so thoroughly transformed its traditional internationalism into Europism that it has been unable to recognize EU institutions and regulations as a major source of its problems. The stigmatization of “the nation” as aggressively nationalistic has held back the left’s ability to envisage and advocate progressive policies at the national level, instead putting its hopes forever in a future hypothetical “social Europe.” Such a transformation would require unanimity under EU rules – politically impossible with 28 widely differing Member States.

Without such inhibitions, the far right capitalizes on growing discontent.

Another related handicap of the left is its inability to recognize that mass immigration is indeed “a problem” – especially in a country like Italy, with a flagging economy and 20 percent official unemployment (although this figure is probably too high, considering undeclared labor). There is resentment that prosperous Germany issued a general invitation to refugees, which for geographic reasons pile in Mediterranean countries unable to cope. The mass influx of economic migrants from Africa is not even “taking jobs away from” Italians – the jobs are not there to take. These migrants fled war and misery to come to Europe in order to earn money to send back to their families, but how can they possibly meet these expectations?

It is all very well to extol the glorious hospitality of America entreating the world to “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me…”. Such generosity was suited to a new nation with huge empty spaces and rapidly growing industry in need of a work force. The situation of a “full” nation in a time of economic downturn is quite different. What is to become of the tens of thousands of vigorous young men arriving on Italian shores where there is nothing for them to do except sell African trinkets on the sidewalks of tourist centers? To make matters worse, the great contemporary thrust of technical innovation aims at replacing more and more workers with robots. Leftist denial of the problem leaves its exploitation and resolution to the extreme right.

Some leftist politicians in Italy, such as Stefano Fassina of the Sinistra Italiana are waking up to this need. A left that dogmatically ignores the real concerns of the people is doomed. A bold, honest, imaginative left is needed to champion Italians’ independence from both German-imposed austerity and the expensive military adventurism demanded by the United States. But the interlaced problems created by unregulated globalization do not lend themselves to easy solutions.

*

This article was also published on Consortiumnews.

Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary ClintonCounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western DelusionsPluto Press (2002). She is a research associate of  Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Italy: The Center Cannot Hold

Politics and History of U.S.-DPRK Relations

June 4th, 2018 by Abayomi Azikiwe

In order to acquire an appreciation of the events surrounding United States-DPRK relations it is first necessary to place the upcoming summit meeting between Marshall Kim Jong un and President Donald Trump in Singapore within a politico-historical context.

There has never been a peace treaty signed after the armistice agreement of 1953 which ended the direct military engagement which lasted from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953. This war popularly known in the U.S. as the “Korean Conflict,” was a costly intervention for Washington.

Tens of thousands of Pentagon, British and Republic of Korea puppet troops were killed in battle and several hundred thousands more were wounded and injured. The battle was viewed in the capitalist world as the opening of the post-World War II effort to roll back and destroy the socialist camp. 

For its was the Red Army which broke the back of the Nazi forces in a series of battles between 1942-43 in Moscow, Stalingrad and other areas inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The founder of the DPRK and the leader of the Korean Communist Party, later the Workers Party of Korea (WPK), Kim Il Sung, served alongside the Soviet and Chinese Communist Party comrades in both mainland China and northern Korea. 

The Korean Peninsula had been subjected to Japanese interference and domination dating back to the later decades of the 19th century. The Korea-Japan Treaty of 1876 was followed by similar agreements of 1905 and 1910 annexing the peninsula.

Korea was occupied by Japanese imperialism for four decades until the conclusion of World War II and the defeat of Tokyo. During the years of 1945-48 there was the consolidation of socialist state rule and the formation of the DPRK. 

All the while the U.S. under President Harry Truman was seeking to place surrogate leaders in the southern region of the Peninsula many of whom were former operatives of the Japanese rulers. Trade unionists, radicals, socialists and national revolutionary elements were targeted by the U.S.-backed regime in Seoul.

Black Panther newspaper in solidarity with DPRK, China and North Vietnam

When the invasion was carried out under auspices of the United Nations in June 1953, the communist forces were close to seizing control of the entire Korean nation. U.S. and British troops later invaded the north prompting the mobilization of 500,000 Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) soldiers deployed by Communist Party leader Chairman Mao Tse-tung. 

Imperialist troops were defeated in the north and later were a part of the largest military retreat in U.S. history. After the armistice was signed in 1953 under President Dwight Eisenhower, Washington has maintained a large-scale military presence around the Peninsula. 

U.S., Japan and Korean Relations: The Current Situation

Yearly joint exercises bringing together ROK and U.S. troops serve as a provocation to the DPRK and its people. The Pentagon has a permanent base in the ROK along with fighter jets, warships and nuclear submarines.

These threats are coupled with the constant harassment by the Japanese imperialist governments of today. A series of meetings bringing together the leaders of the DPRK and ROK have been met with trepidation and scorn by Tokyo as well as Washington. The last thing U.S. imperialism and its surrogates want is the mutual unification of the Korean Peninsula even under two separate social systems.    

A recent article published in the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) noted:

“It is annoying that some forces are hindering the positive development, but the DPRK has invariably taken bold measures. The measures are hailed by the international community as they help the positive development of the situation. What matters against this backdrop is the ill purpose sought by Japan offending the world public in disregard of this situation, being displeased with it. Japan seeks to bring the situation back to the state of confrontation to divert public attention at home away from its bankrupt policy toward people’s living and high-profile graft and to invent a pretext for turning Japan into a militarist country and carrying out overseas expansion. Japan likes to wreck peace and break stability as it deems it a good chance for carrying out its ultra-right home and foreign policies. So it is quite natural that its policy invites the public denunciation.” (May 30)

This political trajectory of an attempt at normalization of relations for the North and South, have also seen closer cooperation with the People’s Republic of China under the leadership of the Communist Party headed by Xi Jinping. Kim Jong un has made two high profile visits to Beijing where important matters of interests involving the two socialist states were discussed. Socialist China is facing constant military encroachment by the U.S. particularly in the South Seas region. 

A report appearing in Global Times emphasized the continuing threat of military aggression by Washington in the Asia-Pacific region.  The article said that:

“China on Thursday (May 31) urged the U.S. to play a responsible and constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region, after Washington renamed its most expansive military command a move Chinese analysts warned could be a U.S. attempt at global hegemony. The Pentagon renamed ‘U.S. Pacific Command’ to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command,’ U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis announced on Wednesday (May 30) at a ceremony where Philip Davidson was placed at the helm of the newly renamed command, CNN reported.” 

This same story continued saying:

“Regardless of the name, the U.S. should act in a responsible way and play a constructive role in regional peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a daily briefing on Thursday.

China will closely monitor the change, defense ministry spokesperson Ren Guoqiang told the Global Times at a press conference on Thursday. Also at the Wednesday ceremony, Davidson’s predecessor Harry Harris reiterated that China remains the US’ biggest long-term challenge.”

The nuclear weapons program and general military readiness of the DPRK and PRC must be analyzed within this foreign policy framework. Irrespective of the outcome of the Singapore Summit on June 12, hostilities over the control of the Asia-Pacific region will not be resolved. Ultimately U.S. imperialism should be isolated in the area allowing for the free development of relations among various states and their cooperation in the economic and scientific spheres.

Historical Relationship to the DPRK Among African Americans and Working Class People

At the height of the African American Liberation Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the DPRK repeatedly expressed and demonstrated its solidarity with the struggle against racism and national oppression among oppressed people in the U.S. This was most profoundly exemplified by the alliance of the Black Panther Party and the WPK during the period.

Black Panther reprint of Kim Il Sung article

Leading figures in the BPP including Central Committee members Kathleen and Eldridge Cleaver routinely traveled to the DPRK for seminars and conferences. In 1970, the then couple’s second child was born in the socialist state. On a regular basis essays and speeches by Kim Il Sung appeared in the pages of the Black Panther newspaper published in Berkeley, California. 

When Panther leaders Fred Hampton, Sr. and Mark Clark were slain by Chicago police at the aegis of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on December 4, 1969, the DPRK sent a statement of condolences. These acts of compassion and encouragement led to the serious study of the DPRK policy of self-reliance, known as Juche. This theory of revolutionary development stresses the importance of communist parties and states to rely on their own people and resources as a pillar in the maintenance of their independence and sovereignty. 

In the early 1990s in the wake of the collapse of the socialist states and parties in Eastern Europe along with the USSR itself, the WPK held a conference of revolutionary organizations internationally that issued the Pyongyang Declaration of 1992.  This document was a recommitment to socialist construction, anti-imperialism and the necessity of an independent foreign policy for the majority of peoples throughout the world. 

On April 20, 1992 some 70 party leaders from around the globe wrote in part that:

“The representatives of political parties from different countries of the world who are striving for the victory of socialism publish this declaration with a firm conviction to defend and advance the socialist cause. Ours is an era of independence and the socialist cause is a sacred one aimed at realizing the independence of the popular masses. Socialism suffered a setback in some countries in recent years. As a consequence of this, the imperialists and reactionaries are claiming that socialism has ‘come to an end’. This is nothing but a sophistry to beautify and embellish capitalism and patronize the old order. The setback of socialism and the revival of capitalism in some countries are causing a great loss to the achievement of the socialist cause, but it can never be interpreted as the denial of the superiority of socialism and of the reactionary character or capitalism. Socialism has long been the ideal of mankind (humanity) and it represents the future of mankind (humanity). Socialist society is, in essence, a genuine society for the people where the popular masses are the masters of everything and everything serves them.”   

This document written 27 years ago remains a source of inspiration to the working and oppressed peoples of the world. In honor of the legacy of the Pyongyang Declaration we ourselves remain committed to the struggle for national liberation and socialism in the 21st century.

*

Note: This address was delivered at a public meeting held on Saturday June 2, 2018 in Detroit which discussed the history and contemporary situation regarding relations between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United States. A scheduled summit later in the month between DPRK leader Kim Jong un and his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump in Singapore has drawn the attention of the international community. The meeting was sponsored by Workers World Party of Michigan at its headquarters in the Midtown District.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

EU NATO chiefs are now increasingly concerned about their level of military co-operation with the only nuclear state in the world that is outside both the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. (NPT)/ (CWC)/ (BWC).

Whilst non-nuclear Iran is subject to inspection by UN Inspectors from the IAEA, nuclear-armed Israel is completely free to increase its weapons of mass destruction, ad infinitum. That includes nuclear, chemical and biological WMD.

Israeli infiltration into European defence systems is now increasingly seen as a catastrophic error by military chiefs anxious to maintain EU and NATO security in the light of current global political instability and the renewed threat from Russia.

Recent co-operation between the Trump administration and the allegedly corrupt Netanyahu ministry, is of increasing concern to European leaders anxious to maintain international trade and peaceful co-operation with Iran. The Trump-Netanyahu collusion is now less of a political error and increasingly more of a strategic threat to both mainland Europe and Britain.

Whilst Israel’s civilian population has some important centres of excellence particularly in the medical and software sectors, this is insufficient to negate the very real threat to Europe from this aggressive, nuclear-armed, expansionist state with its brutal military and its contempt for both human rights and the will of the United Nations.

*

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

India is misleading the world by saying that it will only adhere to UNSC sanctions and not unilaterally imposed US ones because this only reflects the state’s official intent and doesn’t account for why two of its Iranian-linked banks are complying with American demands.

People all across the world, and especially in the multipolar bloc of BRICS, collectively let out a sigh of relief after Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Saraj said that “India follows only U.N. sanctions, and not unilateral sanctions by any country”, formalizing New Delhi’s intent to continue trading with Tehran in spite of enormous pressure from Washington to curtail its economic connections with the sanctioned Islamic Republic.

That official statement accurately reflects the Indian government’s intentions in continuing to purchase oil from its third-largest supplier and hints that it won’t let its North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) plans with Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia be deterred by America, but it nevertheless fails to account for why two of the country’s Iranian-linked banks are complying with American demands.

While marketed as “multi-alignment”, this double-dealing policy of deceit is actually nothing more than a clever way of implementing unipolar policies under a multipolar guise.

Reuters quoted Ajay Sahai, Director General of the Federation of Indian Exporters Organisation (FIEO), as saying that “IndusInd and UCO bank are telling exporters that you complete all Iran business by August 6”, which is right around the time when the US’ more robust anti-Iranian sanctions are expected to kick in. The news outlet also claims to have seen an IndusInd letter from 24 May that backs up Sahai’s account.

Quite clearly, then, the “world’s largest democracy” is obviously incapable of enforcing its sanctions-evading policies on its private companies, who are keen to do as they please in pursuit of their self-interests, which evidently lay in abiding by America’s anti-Iranian sanctions. The dichotomy between a government that pledged to ignore the US’ sanctions and a private sphere that’s eager to implement America’s decree raises serious questions about India’s reliance as an international partner.

There’s no doubt that New Delhi’s independent interests are best served by continuing its energy trade with Tehran and comprehensively expanding economic relations through the NSTC, but the problem is that some of its private companies don’t see things that way and are afraid of falling victim to the US’ wrath if they dare to evade Washington’s anti-Iranian sanctions.

This illustrates a problem much larger than India, however, and it’s that the weaponization of sanctions is surprisingly effective because it’s proven its worth in successfully dividing the public and private spheres, with governments swearing not to abide by these unilaterally imposed economic restrictions while companies are more than willing to comply in order to remain in America’s favor and not be shut out of its enormously profitable marketplace.

India, with its comparatively free economy, is unable to force private actors to adhere to state-directed decisions, and honestly speaking, it likely doesn’t intend to do so even through surreptitious means because this could scare away the international investors that it needs to court in order to advance its “Make In India” policy of domestic development and jobs.

Moreover, the independent choice that private companies make to follow American sanctions might actually be something that some Indian decision-makers silently approve of because it allows their country to de-facto implement the will of its new 100-year-long military-strategic “partner” (or more accurately, hegemonic neo-colonizer) while misleading the world with feel-good statements about its government’s intent to do the opposite. While marketed as “multi-alignment”, this double-dealing policy of deceit is actually nothing more than a clever way of implementing unipolar policies under a multipolar guise.

*

This article was originally published on Global Village Space.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several online journals, as well as a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He specializes in Russian affairs and geopolitics, specifically the US strategy in Eurasia. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

The decision of the Trump administration to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—a major international agreement to address the Iranian nuclear programme—set in motion a wave of reactions across the world. President Trump terminated the US “participation in the JCPOA, as it failed to protect America’s national security interests.” He said that the JCPOA “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior, while at best delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons and allowing it to preserve nuclear research and development.” Trump also “directed his Administration to immediately begin the process of re-imposing sanctions related to the JCPOA.” The re-imposed sanctions are expected to “target critical sectors of Iran’s economy, such as its energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors.” He said that

“those doing business in Iran will be provided a period of time to allow them to wind down operations in or business involving Iran.”  

Trump also warned that

“those who fail to wind down such activities with Iran by the end of the period will risk severe consequences” (US, White House 2018).

India, the European Union (EU) and other parties to the deal have their own reasons to express concern over the US pull out. The nuclear deal was signed between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, France, Russia, the UK, US-plus Germany), and the EU in Vienna on 14 July  2015 with a view  to  curbing Iranian nuclear programme in return for the lifting of economic sanctions (US, Department of State 2015). It may be recalled that after the US pull out, Tehran sought assurances from the remaining signatories—in particular the Europeans—that its interests were guaranteed or it would go back to resume nuclear activities.

Concerns of the EU members have already emerged from various quarters. Former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said that the Iran nuclear deal was a binding multilateral agreement, and the US withdrawal amounts to violating international norms. Schuessel said:

“Europe, Russia, China, international traders should stand up and challenge the American decision in the United Nations and in the WTO. We have to stand up against it. It’s a question of principle. After World War II, we created a very positive empire of norms, and we should defend these norms and standards” (Tehran Times, 30 May 2018).

According to Peter Jenkins, former UK Ambassador to the IAEA and UN,

“As long as Iran is complying with the JCPOA, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia are deprived of any basis for claiming that Iran presents a nuclear threat which must be eliminated by the use of force.”

He also said that though it was “likely to result in a loss of economic benefits to Iran, the Europeans, Russia and China are likely to look for as many ways as possible of compensating for that economic loss” (Tehran Times, 28 May 2018). In a statement, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, said that the 28-nation bloc would be united in preserving the international nuclear deal. She said that member states were closely coordinating their efforts “to protect the economic investments of European businesses that have legitimately invested and engaged in Iran” during the past three years since the nuclear deal was agreed (The National, 28 May 2018).

After hearing Trump’s statement, Chancellor Angela Merkel reaffirmed that Germany and other EU nations would continue to support the deal. Merkel said:

“Germany, France and the UK have decided that we will abide by the agreement, and we will do everything we can to see that Iran also abides by its responsibilities in the future.”

Merkel, however, took the position that

“Iran is, in some respects, a destabilizing force in the Middle East.”

Yet, she considered the nuclear deal, in which Iran agreed to discontinue any nuclear weapons development in return for the easing of sanctions, “an important pillar we don’t want to do without” (Deutsche Welle [DW] 9 May 2018). French President Macron said that he regretted the United State’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal. Yet, he said, he would work towards a broader agreement that also encompassed Iran’s ballistics programme and regional activities. Macron admitted that “the nuclear non-proliferation regime is at stake” after speaking with Trump (France 24, 8 May 2018).

China also expressed its concern over the American decision to leave the deal. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Geng Shuang, said that the Iran nuclear deal was a multilateral agreement reached after negotiations among six countries and that all parties should faithfully implement and safeguard the integrity and seriousness of the deal (Global Times, 9 May 2018). A former Chinese ambassador to Iran reminded that the deal was not abolished. Only the US decided to withdraw from the deal already approved by the UN Security Council. And hence its efficacy would remain with or without the US. However, Trump’s decision only left the US isolated from the international community (Ibid).

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov said that the nuclear deal would stay in place, regardless of Trump’s position, but there would be problems with its implementation. He said that whatever the White House might say, it would mean that there could be problems on a path of its implementation. But it in no way means it would be broken down.

“It is a multilateral document approved unanimously, including by the United States, at the United Nations Security Council in the corresponding resolution.” “So, I am convinced that the rest five nations (Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany – TASS) will stay committed to this deal, and I hope Iran will stay committed to it too,” he said (TASS, 8 May 2018).

Vladimir Yermakov, Director General of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at Russia’s Foreign Ministry, also told the media that a US withdrawal from the accord did not necessarily mean the end of the deal. He said:

“It might even be easier for us on the economic front, because we won’t have any limits on economic cooperation with Iran. We would develop bilateral relations in all areas – energy, transport, high tech, medicine,” he said. “If the United States breaks an international agreement backed by UN Security Council resolutions, it will be the United States that should suffer the consequences. Neither Iran nor China nor Russia nor the European states should lose out,” Yermakov said (Ibid).

India’s stakes and interests

Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal naturally caused concerns in India, a strategic partner of the US, but one of the largest importers of oil from Iran. Immediately after the news from Washington, the Ministry of External Affairs put out a press release. It stated:

“India has always maintained that the Iranian nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and diplomacy by respecting Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy as also the international community’s strong interest in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. All parties should engage constructively to address and resolve issues that have arisen with respect to the JCPOA” (India, MEA 2018a).

Related image

Later, India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj (image on the right) stated that India, a long-time importer of oil from Iran, only complies with United Nations-mandated sanctions and “not any country-specific sanctions.” The press release of the MEA,  after meeting of the Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif with the Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj noted that “all parties to the agreement should engage constructively for peaceful resolution of the issues” (India, MEA 2018b).

India’s immediate responses on this question show that it finds it difficult to make any compromise on the current transactions with Iran. Trump’s decision may have long-term consequences in the background of India’s growing oil imports, especially when Iran continues to be India’s third largest source of supply of crude oil, after Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Also, any price hike in crude oil would have its biggest impact on India’s current account deficit. China and India are the first and second largest buyers of Iranian crude oil. It may be noted that during the visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to India, there was an understanding that India would increase its oil imports from Iran. It was reported that India had agreed its refiners would raise their crude purchase by half a million barrels a day (or 25 million tonne) in 2018-19, marking an increase of 25% over the 370,000 barrels per day (18.5 MT) estimated for 2017-18. During 2016-17, India had imported 510,000 barrels per day (25.5 million tonne) of oil from Iran (Times of India, 18 February 2018). It was also at this time that India had made its commitment to participate in the development of the Chabahar Port project (India, MEA 2018c). All these commitments are likely to be affected by the US pull out.

It is significant to note that India pays its oil bill to Iran in Euro by making use of the facilities available through the European banking system. Hence it is a critical challenge that India can only import oil from Iran as long as EU does not re-impose sanctions. For India and other buyers, the Iranian oil is profitable insofar as Teheran provides three months of credit. Earlier, when the sanctions were in place (with the EU joining the US), India had utilized a Turkish bank facilities to pay the import bill. Later, since 2013 Iran even allowed the payment in rupees until alternative channels were ready. As sanctions were eased in 2015, India was able to clear its dues.

India has long been under pressure to isolate Iran. The US utilized an opportunity to trap India in its anti-Iranian campaign by passing a domestic legislation in 2006. The occasion was the signing of the 123 Agreement for civil nuclear cooperation. Under the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, which created the legal basis for co-operation between the United States and India, Washington sought to “Secure India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction” (US, Govtrack 2006). Though the Hyde Act was not binding on India, Washington sought to test India’s ‘credibility’ on its position on Iran as a sort of precondition for inking the 123 Agreement.  As such in November 2009, India again joined the US in voting against Iran in a resolution passed by the IAEA censuring Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme and demanding that it stop uranium enrichment. In 2005 and 2006 also, India voted in a similar way against Iran.

Interestingly, even as India fell in line with the Western strategic thinking on Iran, it sought to sustain a different position defying Western sanctions. India continued to engage Tehran to ensure a healthy trade relationship. The import of oil was not affected badly as India sought to find alternative routes to do business with Iran.  In early May 2013, India and Iran decided to step up their bilateral relations in all aspects including connectivity for which New Delhi would be assisting in the upgradation of the strategically crucial Chabahar port located in south eastern part of Iran (Seethi 2015). During a meeting between the foreign ministers of India and Iran, the two sides agreed to work on a trilateral transit agreement involving India, Iran and Afghanistan (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2013). Tehran saw this important not only for Iran and Afghanistan, but for the entire Central Asia. The two countries reiterated the significance of greater connectivity between Russia, Central and South Asia through the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC). India viewed this project as part of reinforcing its ‘Connect Central Asia’ and ‘Look West’ policy. Given India’s sensitive relations with Pakistan, New Delhi saw the Chabahar port as an alternative route not only to Afghanistan, but also to resource-rich Central Asia. It may also be noted that India was keen to open alternative routes to Afghanistan ever since China took over Pakistan’s Gwadar Port (a warm-water, deep-sea port located in the Arabian Sea at Gwadar in Baluchistan province), which is about 76 km from the Chabahar port. The Chabahar port, surrounded by a free trade zone, is vital particularly since Islamabad does not permit transit facility from India to Afghanistan (Seethi 2015).  

With the US pull out, India’s growing interest in Afghanistan and Central Asia is now at risk. The Chabahar port is set to give a transport corridor to Afghanistan, providing the landlocked country a new facility to have a deepened Indian Ocean trade. Now that a fresh US sanctions are round the corner, the agencies involved in the port project are apprehensive about the US retaliation for engaging Iran. Though the Modi Government is claiming that it still sustains ‘strategic autonomy,’ it remains to be seen if it can ignore the strategic imperatives of the emerging Indo-Pacific collaboration where both New Delhi and Washington have vital stakes.

*

K M Seethi is Professor, School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He can be reached at [email protected]

Sources

India, MEA (Ministry of External Affairs) (2018a): “Official Spokesperson’s response to media queries on the recent developments regarding the JCPOA,May 09, 2018,” http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/29880/Official_Spokespersons_response_to_media_queries_on_the_recent_developments_regarding_the_JCPOA

India, MEA (Ministry of External Affairs) (2018b): “Transcript of Weekly Media Briefing by Official Spokesperson, May 10, 2018,’ http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/29886/Transcript_of_Weekly_Media_Briefing_by_Official_Spokesperson_May_10_2018

India, MEA (Ministry of External Affairs) (2018c): “India-Iran Joint Statement during Visit of the President of Iran to India, February 17, 2018),” http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/29495/IndiaIran_Joint_Statement_during_Visit_of_the_President_of_Iran_to_India_February_17_2018

India, MEA (Ministry of External Affairs) (2013): “Joint Press Statement on 17th India-Iran Joint Commission Meeting, May 4, 2013,” http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/21652/Joint+Press+Statement+on+17th+IndiaIran+Joint+Commission+Meeting

Seethi, K.M. (2015): “The Global South and Non-Alignment: Challenges of Indian Diplomacy in the Gulf,” The Journal of Political Economy and Fiscal Federalism, Vol.1.

Seethi, K.M. (2013): “India and the Emerging Gulf: Between ‘Strategic Balancing’ and ‘Soft Power’ Options,” in Tim Niblock and Monica Malik (eds.), Asia-Gulf Economic Relations in the 21st Century: The Local to Global Transformation, London: Gerlach Press.

US, White House (2018): “President Donald J. Trump is Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal, May 9, 2018,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-ending-united-states-participation-unacceptable-iran-deal/

US, Department of State (2015): “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/

US, Govtrack  (2006): H.R. 5682 (109th): Henry J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5682/text

Featured image is from the author.

Being a politically, among other things, naive young man circa 1968, this writer did not understand what in the hell was going on that year. Having read the Playboy interview with Jim Garrison in ’67, before of course I got into my main reasons for buying the magazine, I was into the conspiracy theory of JFK’s murder.

Garrison laid it out pretty well, and I should have ‘known better’ when MLK was shot down. That was in April, and now it was a hot and sticky June 5th morning. My college term, the first one for me, was now over and I was ready to enjoy the Brooklyn beaches and lovely Brooklyn girls, IF so lucky. The Democratic primary campaign was in full swing, and quite honestly my ignorance of things political was showing. I knew that many friends from Brooklyn College had worked for Eugene McCarthy, with some of them moving over to now work for Bobby as RFK was referred to. The Vietnam ‘thing’ was still far removed from me, as I had my ‘cherished’ student deferment. Nobody I hung out with had been drafted, though two of my friends did sign up for the Air Force. We all saw the ‘War’ being covered each and every night on the television news, and I only read the newspaper for the sports and horoscope. Such was my life that June 5th morning.

Turning on the FM radio to hear some rock and roll music, the news came across that Bobby had been shot. The DJ put on Jackie DeShannon’s 1965 hit song ‘What the world needs now is Love’. I remember sitting by our bedroom window and looking out. Too much to take that hot and sticky June morning. The radio and television shows had been interrupted to cover what had happened late last night at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. No going to the beach today for me. No, I just stayed around the block and hung out with my friends, all of us trying to make some sense of it all. The television news told us that some Arab had killed Kennedy because of some political gripe about the Palestinian problem in Israel. Sadly, I knew nothing of all this.

All I knew of Bobby was that he had come out against the Vietnam War and wanted to end it, as did McCarthy before him. LBJ had announced he was not running, and former Vice President Richard Nixon looked like the candidate for the Republicans. Nixon was not a favorite of many of my young peers, except of course the few who still supported the war. I knew he said he wanted to end it but his party had a recent history, with Goldwater in 1964, of being ready to A Bomb the enemy. That is what I naively knew of all of this.

The next morning the news came out that Bobby was dead. Two major civil and human rights leaders were shot down, only less than five years after JFK’s murder. Something was not right here. I needed to find out, but few in the media would ever insinuate that both murders were the work of conspiracies.

No, the real ‘Deep State’, which controlled both the two political parties and the mainstream media (sound familiar?) had decided it was time for the country to first mourn and then ‘Move on’. Well, perhaps conspiracy theories had been put on ice for awhile, but the nation only became more divided over Vietnam. That is when this writer ‘broke his cherry’ and began the slow process of growing up politically.

*

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 300 of his work posted on sites like Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust., whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected]

The US, “Israel”, and even Russia have called for the withdrawal of Iranian troops from Syria, albeit for different reasons and expressed in different ways, though Damascus and Tehran have responded by insisting that no such troop deployment ever happened during the seven-year-long war and that the Islamic Republic only has military “advisors” in the country. This is a curious description for foreign fighters embedded with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) who have even been martyred on many occasions because of their frontline role in “advising” their allies, which would seem to contradict the function of what many assume is just the passive role that these forces are supposed to play in managing military affairs and training their counterparts.

It’s unbelievable that Iran would deploy “advisors” on the frontlines of Syria’s anti-terrorist struggle and not properly arm them in the event that they’d have to defend themselves, which would in practice blur the line between “advisor” and soldier by making them more of a combatant than anything else. To be clear, it is the Syrian government’s right to request whatever military assistance it requires from its allies and to describe their services with whatever euphemisms it thinks are appropriate, but at the same time there’s no ignoring that these “advisors” often function as troops that are simply fighting under a different hat.

The reason why such word games are being played is because these forces are, legally speaking, only “advisors” in the sense that their formal duties aren’t to directly participate in hostilities even if they’re drawn into doing so for defensive purposes out of “mission creep”, and officially recognizing them as anything else would have immediately drawn an “Israeli” military response. Tel Aviv has since wised up to their real role over the years and has lately, with Russia’s passive facilitation, turned the Arab Republic into one big bombing range of Iranian and Hezbollah targets, but Damascus and Tehran nevertheless feel compelled to keep up the ruse about these forces’ “advisory” role no matter how unconvincing it is in practice to any objective observer.

Both allied counties naturally have self-interested intentions in perpetuating this narrative

The SAA has grown strategically dependent on the IRGC over the years and fears losing liberated territory if the government is pressured into downscaling their presence as part of a “phased withdrawal”, which is why Damascus is unlikely to agree to this until it feels comfortable enough that its Russian partner has succeeded in convincing Turkey to have its “rebels” honor the existing ceasefire after Iran’s removal from the Arab Republic. The southern front is in the news lately because Damascus knows that Moscow has no sway here and distrusts this region’s “Israeli”, Saudi, and American “rebel” patrons, hence why the SAA is gearing up for an offensive there but also why Russia is leveraging its “balancing” role in order to ensure that this is the final military campaign of the war prior to fast-tracking the political process after what it’s expecting will be Syria’s adherence to the “suggestion” that it ask Iran to leave.

Iran, for its part, derives a distinct strategic advantage from the fact that the SAA has grown so dependent on its “advisory” assistance that it’s still utilizing its services to this very day over seven years after the start of the war, without which the country wouldn’t have survived this long even though one would expect that it should by now be able to do things on its own after over half a decade of first-hand experience. Accordingly, Iran envisions post-war Syria functioning as a Damocles’ Sword hanging over the head of its hated Zionist foe, forever keeping them trapped in fear with the thought (whether true or not) that Iran will turn their neighbor into a “rear base” from which to destabilize their political entity in support of the Palestinian liberation movement.

The confluence of interests between Syria and Iran explains why they’re cooperating in maintaining the myth that Iran’s military “advisors” don’t have any combat role whatsoever.

Nevertheless, it’s precisely because of their game-changing support to Syria and the Arab Republic’s dependence on their services that the US and “Israel” want these “advisors” removed as soon as possible, rightly believing that they’re the lynchpin behind the SAA’s on-the-ground successes (all individual bravery of its own soldiers notwithstanding). At the start of the conflict, this goal was pursued in order to intensify the war but is now being advanced to de-escalate it, which is why Russia’s surprisingly jumped on board with this plan.

It should be reminded that a security dilemma has set in between the West (mostly the US & “Israel”) and the Resistance (specifically Syria & Iran in this case) whereby the issue of Tehran’s defensive deployment of “advisors” at Damascus’ request is interpreted by Washington and Tel Aviv as an offensive move designed to turn the country into a launching pad for Iranian attacks against “Israel”. So long as these “advisors” are anywhere “near” (used very loosely in a relative sense) the occupied Golan Heights, “Israel” is going to strike them, thus escalating the country’s Hybrid War of Terror through its “surgical” military interventions and threatening to turn it into an uncontrollable conventional conflict.

Russia, whose 2015 anti-terrorist intervention foiled the US-“Israeli” plans to destroy Syria via their proxies, understands this predicament and is therefore working very hard to ensure that neither Iran nor Hezbollah crosses over into southern Syria to assist the SAA in their forthcoming liberation offensive, which is being dangled as a possible “compromise” in exchange for “Israel” withdrawing its support for the militants active near the occupied Golan Heights. The idea is that after this group of “rebels” is defeated and a “gentlemen’s agreement” reached with the US over the future of its al-Tanf outpost, Damascus won’t have any further need for Tehran’s military services since it stands no chance of forcibly liberating either the northern Turkish-backed militant enclaves or the US-occupied one-third of the country in the northeast, consequently “making it easier” for Syria to “save face” by requesting Iran’s “phased withdrawal” afterwards.

In the run-up to that prospectively happening, any potential Iranian “advisors” that would have otherwise been deployed near the occupied Golan Heights had Russia not “diplomatically intervened” in brokering an informal deal between Syria and “Israel” would instead be sent on anti-terrorist missions deep inside the host country’s hinterland, therefore preventing any inadvertent aggravation of the destabilizing security dilemma. Should President Assad proceed with the US, “Israel”, and Russia’s separate requests for what would presumably be the “phased withdrawal” of Iranian “advisors” from the country, then the first-mentioned two of them would implicitly accept that he will remain in office because of the impossibility of toppling him after Russia’s 2015 intervention and the removal of any Iranian-linked pretext for “surgically” intervening in support of his armed opponents.

None of this can happen without trust, however, and since the Resistance and the West obviously distrust one another, Russia’s “balancing” role becomes pivotal as the only actor capable of bringing both parties together in an informal agreement, however imperfect it may be especially if Iran disagrees with its terms and outcome. President Assad, who’s the object of Russia and Iran’s competing “influence operations” at the moment due to his decisive role in having the final say over whether any of this will go forward or not, doesn’t feel fully comfortable with everything though he’s unable to shape the situation any further to his country’s advantage, which is why Damascus is going along with Iran’s narrative at the moment while simultaneously taking steps to implement the Russian-brokered indirect (key word) deal with “Israel” in spite of its claims to the contrary.

The end result of this somewhat clumsy “balancing” act that Syria’s attempting to carry out at the moment is the perpetuation of the unbelievable though “politically correct” (relative to Alt-Media dogma) narrative that Iran’s “advisors” don’t play any combat role in the country, which doesn’t make sense given the many martyrs who have already sacrificed their lives for the anti-terrorist cause there and would presumably have entered into the frontlines of combat unarmed if their “advisory” functions truly didn’t have any overlap with combat ones. The only people who seem to believe this politically contrived euphemistic narrative are the infowarriors disseminating it all over the web because practically everyone else recognizes this for what it is in being a transparent tactic for buying time before Syria can no longer resist the heavy multinational pressure against it in finally calling for the “phased withdrawal” of Iranian forces from the country.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

China’s Dream of Hegemony?

June 4th, 2018 by Kim Petersen

On 30 May, United States Admiral Harry Harris, slated to become the next US ambassador to South Korea, said: “China remains our biggest long-term challenge. Without focused involvement and engagement by the United States and our allies and partners China will realize its dream of hegemony in Asia.”

This is starkly at odds with how Chinese leaders describe the Chinese Dream. Chinese chairman Xi Jinping explained:

… the Chinese Dream of the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation means that we will make China prosperous and strong, rejuvenate the nation, and bring happiness to the Chinese people. [1]

Xi averred that it is through the cause of Chinese socialism – whose core values are prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, the rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity and friendliness – that the Chinese Dream will be attained. [2]

And the Chinese Dream is not exclusively for the benefit of Chinese people. Xi spoke of cooperation with other countries “on the path to realizing the great dream of development and prosperity.” [3]

To realize the Chinese Dream… We will both on China’s development and on our responsibilities and contributions to the world as a whole. We will bring benefits to the Chinese people and the rest of the world. The realization of the Chinese Dream will bring the world peace, not turmoil, opportunities, not threats. [4]

Admiral Harris presents a strictly militarist perspective. This is the perspective of a person who views the world in Manichean terms: ally or enemy.

That China is participating in the capitalist market-economy and performing far more spectacularly than the US is no reason to call China a hegemonic aspirant. [5]

Yet Harris’ opinions came on the heels of US warships entering the waters around Chinese-claimed territory in the South China Sea. [6]

The US frequently sends its warships through the region on so-called freedom of navigation patrols, and when the navigation steers provocatively near to islands/islets claimed by China, it causes consternation in Beijing. China abides by freedom of passage through the South China Sea, but as UNCLOS states such passage must be innocent. This should be understandable in Washington because it seems certain how the US would react to Chinese warships sailing through the Straits of Florida. [7]

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said admiral Harris was “obsessed with hegemony,” fearful that others might try to usurp it from the US.

In his book, The Governance of China, chairman Xi Jinping seven times mentions the Chinese aversion to hegemony. Among them:

  • We stand for peaceful resolution of all disputes, oppose all forms of hegemony and power politics, and never seek hegemonism nor engage in expansion. (location 594)
  • China has stood up. It will never again be bullied by any nation. Yet it will never follow in the footsteps of big powers, which seek hegemony once they grow strong. Our country is following a path of peaceful development. (loc 2675)
  • And we have made a solemn pledge to the whole world that we will never seek hegemony or commit any act of expansion… (loc 3664)
  • China does not subscribe to the outdated logic that a country will invariably seek hegemony when it grows strong. Are colonialism and hegemony viable today? Absolutely not. (loc 3956)
  • China would stick to a path of peaceable development, a mutually beneficial strategy and opening up, and the pledge of never seeking hegemony. China would pass its commitment from generation to generation. (loc 6490)

Given the words of the to-be US ambassador to South Korea, one can only assume that the Harris is either ignorant or he is implying that Xi is a liar. Hardly an auspicious start for a job posting that obviously calls for diplomatic skills.

Even if there is substance to what Harris states, it would at best be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Does China have the equivalent of a Monroe Doctrine (by which the US has granted itself preeminence — also referred to as hegemony — in the western hemisphere)? Are Chinese troops warring in Africa? Is China supporting a coup government in Honduras? Is China pursuing “regime change” in Venezuela? In Syria? Is China supporting the oppression and slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli Jews? Does Xi Jinping threaten North Korea with genocide? Has China ringed countries around the world with Chinese military bases?

If China does not engage in such imperialistic acts, then who is actually acting a like a hegemon?

*

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. Xi Jinping, “The Chinese Dream” in The Governance of China (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2014).

2. Xi Jinping, “The Chinese Dream.”

3. Xi Jinping, “The Chinese Dream.”

4. Xi Jinping, “The Chinese Dream.”

5. I already addressed the topic of China as a hegemon, but Harris’ comments call for reply.

6. Curtis Stone, “Washington provokes Beijing in the South China Sea at its own peril,” People.cn, 28 May 2018.

7. For elaboration on the situation in the South China Sea, read “Who has Sovereignty in the South China Sea?

“To treat [U.S.] auto imports like a national security threat would be a self-inflicted economic disaster for American consumers, dealers, and dealership employees,” Cody Lusk, president of the American International Automobile Dealers Association, Wednesday, on May 23, 2018.

“Lots of countries have resorted to protectionism when their economies were doing badly. It almost never works. But Trump may be the first leader ever to do it when the economy is booming. He’s trying to fix a problem that ain’t broke. The auto industry is healthy.” Rufus Yerxa, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, on Wed., May 23, 2018

The 1929 depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the international economic system was rendered unstable by British inability and U.S. unwillingness to assume responsibility for stabilizing it by discharging five functions:

(1) Maintaining a relatively open market for distress goods;

(2) providing countercyclical, or at least stable, long term lending;

(3) policing a relatively stable system of exchange rates;

(4) ensuring the coordination of macroeconomic policies;

(5) acting as a lender of last resort by discounting or otherwise providing liquidity in financial crisis.” Charles Kindleberger (1910-2003), American economic historian, and author of The Great Depression 1929-1939, 1973, revised and enlarged in 1986.

“When every country turned to protect its own private interest, the world public interest went down the drain, and with it the private interests of all.” Charles Kindleberger (1910-2003), American economic historian, and author of The Great Depression 1929-1939, 1973, revised and enlarged in 1986.

American president Donald Trump seems intent to isolate the U.S. economy from neighboring economies, and even from the world economy, and thus to break with three quarters of a century of closer economic cooperation between countries, established after World War II. There is a clear danger that the international economic system could become structurally unsettled for years to come, which does not mean that such a system is not in need of reform.

What worries many economists is Donald Trump’s approach to international economic cooperation, or lack of it, which appears to be a dangerous throwback to the 1930’s. — If his administration were to continue in that direction, the negative economic and industrial dislocations and consequences, both for the American economy and for other economies, would be severe, potentially very severe, considering how closely intertwined modern economies are today, through investment, industrial and technological cooperation, and through reciprocal international trade.

Trump: a Sorcerer’s Apprentice in international trade?

Is it possible that American president Donald Trump is some sort of a Sorcerer’s Apprentice, as far as his protectionist trade policy is concerned? He seems bent on instigating a trade war with other countries, from neighboring Canada, to Europe and to China. In so doing, however, he may start a sequence of events, which could be impossible to control or to stop once set in motion, with very negative economic outcomes. Such outcomes could be a severe economic recession, similar to the 2008-2009 Great Recession, and potentially, in the most extreme case, an economic depression, similar to the one the world experienced before World War II.

Indeed, during the ten years of the 1929-1939 Great Depression, international trade measured in dollars plummeted 65 percent, total U.S. production fell by 47 percent, wages fell 42 percent and the unemployment rate rose to 25 percent. This was truly an economic disaster, mainly brought about by bad public economic policies. Who would want to repeat such a failure?

Is Donald Trump set to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s?

By now, most everybody knows that hotel and casino owner Donald Trump is an extremely self-centered individual who operates in government as he did in his own business, when he was known, in New York, as being a ruthless private real estate negotiator, constantly trying to pull the blanket over to his side, and not hesitating to violate rules and contracts when that suited him. — But a government is not a private corporation. Citizen Trump does not “own” the U.S. government. The U.S. government belongs to the American people and its main function is to pursue policies that promote the common good, not the private interests of a megalomaniac politician or the financial interests of his immediate family, or those of his rich donors.

We have some indication of the troubled economic thinking of Donald Trump, when we consider what he said in a tweet, on March 2, that international “trade wars are good, and easy to win”! I have never heard a statement as outrageous and as irresponsible as this one coming from a head of state, although in Trump’s case, this seems to have become customary.

Trump seems to be oblivious to basic facts of history or basic economics. He doesn’t seem to have a clue about the way international trade and international investment function. He doesn’t seem to understand that the reason the U.S. dollar is widely used as a means of payment internationally, and as a key currency for other countries’ central banks, is a direct consequence of the United States promoting harmonious and multilateral international economic relations. The United States collects important economic and financial benefits from this privileged situation.

Trump’s economic ideas are primitive, obsolete and mercantilist. Let us consider his pretention that for a country to “win” when it trades with other economies, it must have a trade surplus with everyone. In a multilaterally trading world, this is practically impossible. In a given year, a country may have current account surpluses with a number of countries, but will likely have current account deficits with other countries. And this is the normal outcome, if we assume that there are no capital movements between countries.

However, when there are capital movements between countries, as it is the case nowadays, a country can finance an excess of domestic investment over its domestic savings (without inflation) and reap the benefits of faster economic growth. In which case, a net borrowing country will register a current account deficit to counterbalance its net capital inflow, in any given year. That is because a country does not only borrow capital or savings from abroad, it borrows an excess of goods and services from other countries over its own domestic production, and this is paid for with an increase in its net foreign debt (foreign liabilities minus foreign assets). When this new capital is well invested, the country takes advantage of a faster rate of economic growth.

At the end of 2017, the United States had a net foreign debt equal to $ $7,845.8 billion. If the Trump administration were serious in wanting the U.S. economy to generate a trade surplus with the rest of the world, it would stop borrowing heavily from other countries to finance its budget deficit ($440 billion in 2018) and it would take measures to increase domestic savings to cover the needs of all U.S. domestic investments.

But the United States is a net borrower of foreign savings, in a given year, and that is the reason it has a current account deficit. No pronouncements from American politicians can change that reality.

The general principle here is that the balance of payments of a country always balances and there is an economic adjustment, (through interest rates, exchanges rates and incomes), which makes sure that this the case.

That an individual who is the head of state of an important government like the United States does not seem to understand these simple economic and accounting principles is a scandal in itself.

Donald Trump goes rogue on international trade and border taxes

Thursday, May 31, 2018, could be known as the date when Donald Trump launched a trade war with a host of countries, many of them close allies of the United States either in NORAD, as is the case with Canada, or in NATO, as is the case with many European countries. And Trump had the gall to pretend that he is raising tariffs on imports from Canada and from European countries for “national security” reasons, relying on an obscure section 232 of the 1962 trade law (the Trade Expansion Act of 1962), without having Congress vote on the issue!

In Canada’s case, one of Trump’s demands to maintain the 1994 North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) is to insert a sunset clause to automatically terminate and renegotiate the trade agreement each five (5) years. Considering that companies plan their investments twenty or thirty years in advance, only bad faith or mischievous intentions would explain why such an impractical demand has even been considered.

What are the likely negative consequences of an open trade war for its participants?

First of all, U.S. export industries, their production and their employment, will be heavily penalized and disrupted by the new border taxes and similar taxes imposed by other countries, in retaliation, on American exports.

Secondly, U.S. import industries will face higher prices for their supplies, thus raising prices for the consumers and raising the overall rate of inflation. Don’t forget that border taxes are taxes, and that they are ultimately paid by the consumers when they buy goods, from the purchase of jeans to buying houses.

Thirdly, American companies operating worldwide will see their chain of supplies perturbed. They may also face a less welcoming regulatory climate in some countries, as a result of the Trump administration’s hostile economic policies. —Their profit line is most likely to suffer. For instance, for the year 2012 (the last year for which data are available), American corporations reported that profits earned by their US-controlled subsidiaries abroad amounted to more than one trillion US$. American investors profit directly for such foreign incomes.

Fourthly, a rise in domestic inflation is bound to translate into higher interest rates, which are bound, sooner or later, to derail the stock market, with heavy losses to be expected, and possibly an overshoot on the way down.

Fifthly, as economic uncertainly spreads, productive investments will decline, possibly resulting in a self-reinforcing general downward economic spiral, with lower productivity growth, lower incomes, lower employment and lower consumer spending.

Other countries will suffer similar contractions in their economies, causing negative multiplier effects worldwide.

This is a doomsday scenario that the world has seen before and has lived to regret. I do not know a single economist who would advise a course of action such as the one the Trump administration seems to be willing to take.

People who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

Indeed, the Republican Trump administration’s frontal attacks against multilateral trade looks as reckless and as irresponsible as the much reviled Republican Herbert Hoover administration’s move against international trade, in 1930. On June 17, 1930, indeed, President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Act into law, — a law that imposed stiff tariffs on imports. First, American imports plummeted. And secondly, other countries raised their own tariffs in retaliation against American exports. The end result was a dramatic contraction of international trade, which transformed an economic recession into a full-blown worldwide economic depression, which lasted ten years.

It is relatively easy for politicians to start a trade war. It is much more difficult to end one. Donald Trump has no knowledge or competence in international economics and finance, and he probably also is ignorant of the damage that the Republican Herbert Hoover administration did to the U.S. economy, when it precipitated a drop in international trade and international financial flows.

Related image

That Donald Trump wants to repeat, 88 years later, the mistakes of the Hoover administration is difficult to understand. [N.B. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) defeated President Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) in a landslide, in the 1932 U.S. presidential election.]

Indeed, why would Donald Trump impose economic, and eventually, political isolationism, on the United States, with his improvised and destructive attacks on international trade and world economic prosperity? He should know that in so doing, he will do a lot of damage to the U.S. economy, to U.S. corporations, to American workers and to American consumers, and to the world economy as well.

In fact, the Trump administration risks destroying the post World War II system of international economic cooperation, which has been so beneficial to the United States, and which has contributed to raise the standards of living of people, not only in the United States, but in many other countries. American corporations and American banks, and their employees, have especially benefited from the economies of scale, from economic specialisation and from the productivity gains (reduction in production costs) that the opening and stability of international markets have allowed.

Trump’s partisan political motivations

What could motivate the Trump Administration to adopt the risky protectionist policies of the 1930s? This is certainly not for immediate economic reasons, since the U.S. economy is currently operating at full capacity… Unless, of course, what really guides Donald Trump is his political obsession regarding the U.S. mid-term elections of next November. Polls indicate that Trump’s tax policies and other policies put forward for the benefit of the ultra rich, and financed through future increases in public debt, are not very popular among the general population.

Therefore, the enactment of populist trade policies could appeal to the Republicans, at least in the short term and especially in some rust-belt states. In other words, Donald Trump and the Republican Party might believe it to be to their political advantage to ride a wave of economic nationalism and of trade protectionism, in some key industrial states. It will take several months before the negative effects of a trade war will be visible to the American public.

If that were the case, it would be an example of partisan political expediency to reap political gains; a case of short-term political gain for some, at the cost of longer-term economic pain for everybody else.

Conclusion

The conclusion is straightforward. It would be most irresponsible for Donald Trump to initiate a trade war, especially against allied nations, when the American economy is already prosperous. As a general rule, politicians should not play with the economy for their own narrow political benefits. Most Americans, workers or consumers, will pay a high price when American companies will be subjected to the new trade taxes, and will have to raise their prices. The same can be said for the citizens in other trading nations. Trade protectionism has been tried before, and it does not work.

*

This article was also published on Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay’s website.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” and of “The New American Empire”. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s new WEB site: http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.ca/

Richard Gage and Barbara Honegger were recently on a European tour entitled “9/11 Justice: Every Nation, Every Citizen”. Driving into Brussels, they passed by the $ 1.4 Billion new NATO HQ, and Barbara discovered that on May 25th 2017, President Trump had been there to dedicate a piece of twisted steel from the not yet judicially investigated crime scene of the explosive destruction of the twin towers called the “9/11 and Article 5 Memorial”.

Richard’s and Barbara’s purpose of coming to Europe was to ask Europeans to help come to the rescue of a better trans-Atlantic alliance, this time strengthened by truth and factual evidence on (f.ex.) what happened on 9/11, and not on a mythical narrative that seems to have been ‘successfully’ used to coax the European NATO allies into a shameful series of Post-911 wars.

As a Scandinavian doctor working in Brussels, I have been perplexed to see how our European leaders have refused to question the official story, without legal forensic facts, that was used to invoke Article 5 for the first time in the history of the NATO treaty: it was done two days after Sept 11th 2001, based upon the “Osama Bin Laden did it” narrative that the Bush administration assured was truthful.  Since then, for example Denmark, which had not been at war since 1864 (it was neutral in the 1st WW, and neutral when it got run over – without hardly a gun-shot- by the Germans on April 9th 1940) has suffered more soldier casualties per capita than any other coalition partner.

From the position of more than 3000 professional architects of Richard Gage’s www.AE911Truth.org, and strengthened now by a group of highly professional Lawyers www.LCfor911.org  (represented in Brussels by former White House Policy Analyst, and long time Navy senior journalist Barbara Honegger) the duo gave an important Radio interview [on French speaking Radio Campus of the ULB university, which has as its motto “Sciencia vincere tenebras” (Knowledge conquers darkness: the radio-show can be listened to even if you do not speak French) here is the link!] to explain how the “Lawyer’s Committee for 9/11 Inquiry” has now filed a Petition with the U. S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York formally requesting, pursuant to federal statute, that he present to a special grand jury extensive evidence of thus-far unprosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) Towers on 9/11/01.

More importantly, they gave a Press Conference addressed to the Europeans, as it is in our highest interest that our Trans-Atlantic Alliance be strengthened by intelligent adults of good-will who deal with the real factual world. (Read how unfortunately at present P2OG is part of official Pentagon policy to mislead the media of the Western alliance, along with various variations of Gladio operations.)

We were sorry to note that no big media showed up at this Press Conference, given in the main Press Room of the Brussels Info Place, Place Royal 11, the same building that houses the Government of Brussels. It is therefore of utmost importance that Independent Media Outlets relay this Press Conference, so that a larger extent of European and International decision makers become aware of this important reality that Europe has been spending the blood of its soldiers and large amounts of wealth on a series of wars that were invoked by an erroneous, or worse, deceitful narrative that set off NATO’s Article 5 for mutual defence of an attacked ally, for the very first time.

Here are 3 links to the historic Press Conference: do not hesitate to save a copy to your hard drive, as this is a truly ground breaking interview for Europe.

*

Dr. Beeth is a General Practitioner working in Brussels Belgium. He has contributed to Global Research on medical matters, but with the current increase in deceitful provocations that the even many of his well-liked high ranking patients do not seem to understand, he takes the 11th of the month off from his medical duties, to inform the elites about the criminal “inside job” nature of September 11th 2001.  Most citizens are well aware of this, but apparently not the elite, and not the journalists, as they have vested so much of their credibility in denying what is self-evident for a 10-year-old with an intuitively correct understanding of the laws of Physics.  Journalists and decision makers in Brussels who would like to have more information are welcome to contact Dr. Beeth at [email protected].

Today’s Most Popular Global Research Articles

June 3rd, 2018 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Today’s Most Popular Global Research Articles

Brasil, “Qué Se Vayan Todos!”

June 3rd, 2018 by Edu Montesanti

Brasil sem saída. Carta de Temer ao jornal O Estado de S. Paulo sobre posição do (des)governo diante da paralisação dos caminhoneiros, não poderia ter sido mais cínica embora incapaz de superar, neste sentido, apenas a tal de “esquerda” tupiniquim e seu mais ilustre representante: o reacionário e irregenerável PT. Ao diabo que o carregue, rato Temer! Ao trancafiar de seus diretórios regionais, criminoso PT! Que viva o povo trabalhador, unido!!

Os pífios (para dizer o mínimo) argumentos do presidente Michel Temer sobre a posição do (des)governo diante da paralisação dos caminhoneiros das últimas semanas, em artigo publicado no Espaço Aberto do jornal O Estado de S. Paulo neste dia 2 intitulado A Democracia Real (pasmem!), revelam uma vez mais o profundo cinismo de um político desmoralizado antes mesmo de assumir, definitivamente em agosto de 2016, um cargo baseado em descarada traição e corrupção e, junto dessa tragédia brasileira de hoje, o rotundo fracasso de uma tal de “esquerda” fajuta que consegue ser mais reacionária que o dito-cujo a quem (com razão) esperneia e acusa de aliança com as oligarquias nacionais (as mesmas às quais o próprio PT aliou-se quando gozou dos privilégios do poder), os donos de um poder canalha – a saber: grandes corporações, sobretudo agronegócio, indústria farmacêutica, bancos  e transnacionais em geral; confrarias religiosas politiqueiras, manipuladoras desavergonhadas das massas que, extremamente medíocres intellectual e moralmente, sobrevivem sobre o salário alheio; e um funcionalismo público Mafioso, incluindo nesta seleta lista do banditismo juizecos e promotores de (pasmem!) “justiça” em geral, safados engravatados cujo maior desserviço à Nação é colocar-se acima do bem e do mal, acima da lei enquanto, nenhum segredo a ninguém, sabidamente elitistas, vendedores de sentenças e de toda sorte de arbítrios especialmente contra os menos apoderados financeiramente, e negros.

Ao contrário do alegado agora por Temer sem o menor senso do ridículo, seu regime autoritário e anti-popular em todos os aspectos não deixou de fazer uso da forca física contra os caminhoneiros por trazer em sua essência abertura ao diálogo, senso democrático e aversão ao autoritarismo – suas marcas registradas são exatamente o oposto disso tudo.

Basta lembrar, apenas, a convocação das Forcas Armadas para conter as manifestações denominadas Ocupa Brasília de maio de 2017, através da Operação de Garantia da Lei e da Ordem decretada entao pelo auto denominado “democrata” Temer, para desmentir agora esse rato de esgoto entre o pior da pior politicagem nacional.

Temer fez, sim, uso da leniência em certos aspectos,

1. Após receber negative das Forcas Armadas para reprimir os caminhoneiros;

2. Assim, isolado, esteve consciente de que qualquer excesso significaria o fim – já iminente – de seu vexatório desmando em uma Presidência golpista, e golpista pela maneira como assumiu o poder.

Exatamente por essas duas razões, desta vez a gangue usurpadora do poder em Brasília acabou cedendo de todos os lados diante de uma classe não apenas esquecida enquanto, paradoxalmente, fundamental para o País como também marginalizada, estigmatizada, sofredora das piores (sem nenhum exagero) explorações que colocam, dia a dia, quilômetro a quilômetro, suas vidas em risco sob mando de patrões inescrupulosos, diante de uma terra sem lei e a economia nacional em vertiginosos frangalhos (previsíveis desde o anúncio da tal Ponte para o Futuro de Temer), que os obriga a se submeter à vida desumana no mais absoluto silêncio.

Por isso, tampouco vale mais um espetáculo da imbecilidade temerária ao tratar o grosso das manifestações dos caminhoneiros como “alguns” protestos de “uns” mais radicais: mais uma prova da discriminação e até criminzalização da classe caminhoneira, gente solidária e sofredora como poucas outras no Brasil.

Vá ser hipócrita assim, no diabo que o carregue, Michel Temer!

“A tua piscina tá cheia de ratos; tuas ideias não correspondem aos fatos.” (Cazuza)

A ratazana de esgoto de turno no Palácio do Planalto foi, sim, politiqueiramente omissa em relação aos infiltrados e violentos contra a vida humana – inclusive contra os próprios caminhoneiros, o que comprova uma vez mais o caráter casuísta e corrupto da gangue temerária.

Exatamente aí, reside a maior vergonha da tal de “esquerda” dessituada, mais reacionária que este rato-mor e demais ratos do navio em franco e divertido naufrágio (tripulação bandida que inclui todas as malditas classes acima mencionadas, uma a uma, a começar pelos bandidos da “Justiça” tupiniquim). A ex-presidente Dilma Rousseff, injustamente impedida de seguir como presidenta da República, não apenas perdeu sua maior chance de trazer o povo consigo nas artificiais manifestações de junho de 2013, e de fazer as urgentes reformas (por exemplo, política, judiciária, tributária além da regulação midiática), como ainda os reprimiu colocando em prática, além da violência militar, a malfadada Lei Antiterrorismo que é, na verdade, uma Lei Anti-Popular que blinda o regime brasileiro – este atual e, outrora, petista – de protestos que coloque em risco os usurpadores do poder.

Para nem se detalhar, aqui, numerous e fatos tenebrosos sobre os quais tanto o regime de Dilma quanto o de Luiz Inácio foram campeões históricos, no que diz respeito à repressão contra povos originários e na defesa canalha do agronegócio.

O dueto petista superou, tanto em número de assassinatos de indígenas, em insuficiência e demarcação de suas terras quanto em expansão dos latifúndios, figuras como Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Fernando Collor e José Sarney. Para consultas da repressão silenciosa do PT contra esses povos, leia-se relatórios anuais do CIMI (sugestões de leitura, começar pelo informe de 2011:

http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/CNBB/Relat.pdf;

outras leituras providenciais,

https://www.socioambiental.org/pt-br/noticias-socioambientais/o-que-o-governo-dilma-fez-e-nao-fez-para-garantir-o-direito-a-terra-e-areas-para-conservacao /

http://anovademocracia.com.br/no-80/3591-relatorio-diz-que-pt-tem-sido-um-desastre-para-os-indios /

http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/politica/2013-06-07/assassinatos-de-indigenas-no-brasil-crescem-269-nos-governos-dilma-e-lula.html).

Vale também recordar a posição profundamente reacionária dele, Emir Sader, porta-voz do PT (des)qualificando o Movimento dos Trabalhadores sem-Teto (MTST) de cães vira-lata em 2014, pelos protestos às vésperas da Copa do Mundo que despejou milhares de famílias pobres em todo o País – naquela ocasião, o MTST manifestava-se na cidade de São Paulo, cujo prefeito era o petista Fernando Haddad, o que explica a raiva de “esquerda” desse tal de “intelectual”, entre os preferidos deste segmento de péssimo gusto que prima pela covardia e pelo casuísmo.

Se sobra hipocrisia mas há alguma inteligência / astúcia à ratazana emedebista (escolhida a dedo pelo PT, recordemos, pois), por outro lado nem sequer um mínimo de sagacidade politiqueira os regimes Lula e Dilma demostraram nos momentos mais cruciais – desta maneira, de nada adianta espernear hoje por apoio de uma sociedade despolitizada e historicamente reprimida, inerte como poucas no mundo também por obra e graça petista.

Nada está mais próximo do autoritarismo, nunca após 1985 o Brasil esteve tão perto de um novo golpe militar que agora, com a tal de “Democracia Real” temerária baseada na farsante “Ponte para o Futuro” que enganou apenas os mais idiotizados pelos grandes meios de imbecilização em massa (VejaGloboFolha de S. Paulo, o próprio O Estado entre outros monopólios midiáticos que apresentam seu show diário a uma plateia de mentalidade elitista e escravocrata, colonizada intelectualmente), durante o impedimento de Dilma.

Vá ser oportunista e criminoso assim, trancafiado nas quatro paredes de seus cada vez mais murchos, inertes diretórios regionais, PT!

Pois que não reste nenhuma dúvida: no interior desse navio infestado de ratos naufragando cômica e desesperadamente, está também o PT e seus asseclas, sectários em geral.

Quando, em dezembro de 2000 e janeiro de 2001, através de intensos protestos os argentines derrubaram cinco presidentes da República em 23 dias, comecando por Fenrando de la Rúa, o lema era: “Qué se vayan todos!”. Esta deve ser a ordem no Brasil agora, incluindo na lista dos excluídos pelo povo a milicaiada golpista para que uma autêntica democracia, sob um governo realmente popular, ascenda ao poder – o que não se dará apenas através de eleicões, mas de intenso engajamento popular por objetivos bem definidos.

Edu Montesanti

 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Brasil, “Qué Se Vayan Todos!”
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Empire Strikes Back: Leaving Indian Farmers in the Dirt

When Donald Trump’s administration decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, the goal was to partner with allies to push Iran to negotiate a new agreement through even tougher sanctions. The new agreement would cover nuclear activities as well as ballistic missiles and destabilizing Iranian activity in Syria, Yemen and beyond.

World leaders in Asia and Europe, in particular, are reasonably sure that Washington really wants to see the collapse of the Iranian regime in order to control oil flows.

This was an arrogant miscalculation by Washington used to bullying its way around the geopolitical chessboard.

In 2015, under pressure from US sanctions, Russia decided to make moves to drop the USD on oil transactions. Gazprom Neft, the third-largest oil producer in Russia, moved away from the dollar and towards the Chinese yuan and other Asian currencies.

On March 26 this year, China finally launched a yuan-dominated oil futures contract. Over the last decade there have been a number of “false starts,” but this time the contract got approval from China’s State Council.

With that approval, the “petroyuan” became real and China set out to challenge the “petrodollar” for dominance. Adam Levinson, managing partner and chief investment officer at hedge fund manager Graticule Asset Management Asia (GAMA), already warned last year that China launching a yuan-denominated oil futures contract will shock those investors who have not been paying attention.

Paying attention is what those very same investors are now doing.

Already, the petroyuan has proven successful. 15.4 million barrels of crude for delivery in September changing hands over two and a half hours in its first day of trading.

With Washington’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the EU27 backed by Britain decided enough was enough and concentrated efforts to protect business to side-step US sanctions for trading with Iran.

Then comes the news yesterday that India will reportedly pay for Iranian oil in rupees as the two countries seek to bypass the US economic pressure on Tehran.

China is the world’s biggest buyer of oil. America is the second and India is the third. Whilst the USA buys about $110 billion of oil each year – China and India combined – buys nearly $200 billion. The EU including Britain buys another $200 billion.

On oil trades – America is outgunned by the combined weight of its competitors.

These moves will not cause the USD to crash as about 88 per cent of the average daily turnover of foreign exchange instruments is against the dollar.

It took the US dollar nearly a century to unsettle the British pound that had been enjoying its preeminence through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th as the global reserve currency.

However, Washington may well be reeling from the fact that they don’t really have many friends any more.

The loosening of the U.S.-Europe transatlantic alliance is now forcing the EU to find its feet as a more independent superpower. The EU has new, economically driven allies on its side and America is facing even more challenges as it attempts to flex muscle and push back – no doubt starting with an escalating trade war.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Petro-yuan “Becomes Real”: India Joins International Group Dumping US Dollars in Oil Trades to Bypass US Sanctions
  • Tags: , ,

Understanding the U.S. War State

June 3rd, 2018 by Prof. John McMurtry

This incisive article by Professor John McMurtry was first published by Science for Peace and Global Research fifteen years ago in May 2003

***

“It is easy. All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” –Hermann Goering

Genocide used to be a crime without a name. Although the most heinous of all crimes, the concept was not introduced into international language until after World War 2. Until then, military invasion and destruction of other peoples and cultures masqueraded under such slogans as progress and spreading civilisation.

I was shocked many years ago when I heard Noam Chomsky say that genocide was America’s defining political tradition. Then I realised that the United States (like Canada to a much lesser extent) was based on destroying the lives and cultures of the 25 million or so first peoples who had lived in America for millennia. In the case of the U.S., the story continued with the forcible seizure of Texas in 1845 from Mexican farmers and indigenous peoples, and Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and other state territories shortly afterward in 1849. U.S. troops under the slave-owning General Zachary Taylor unilaterally invaded its southern neighbour under the false pretext of avenging American blood, and General Taylor soon vaulted into the White House as a presidential war hero. Even though a young Congressman, Abraham Lincoln, exposed the pretext, and connected it to a Anglo-British business strategy to impose free trade on the regions by financing the prior president, James Polk, into the White House as General Taylor’s commander.

In 1898, once again under the false pretext of self-defence (when the U.S.S. Maine sank from an internal explosion), the Philippines, Guam, Cuba in part, and Puerto Rico were seized from their peoples by another unilaterally provoked war. This war of aggression and occupation, like so many U.S. interventions since, was preceded by a media campaign of whipping up public hysteria and war fever. Media baron Randolf Hearst made the famous remark,

“You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war,” not unlike the U.S. cable and network media daily drum-beat in recent months for war on Iraq.

War is a major violence entertainment, and in close partnership with the Pentagon it can go on for months to divert the masses.

The tradition of misleading the American people by false pretexts for aggressive wars is an old one in U.S. history, but since the fascist interregnum war criminal invasions of other countries have not been accepted by public opinion. The U.S. under the control of the corporate war party now seeks to reverse this trend. By dint of the permitted 9-11 plane attacks on the World Trade Centre, an open presidential blank-cheque has been granted by Congress for attacking third-world countries so as to occupy their countries and control their resources. The now known blueprint of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others written in September of 2001 as the Project for the New American Century is clear on the plan to shape the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Armed domination of the Gulf region transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Oil looms large in this plan to rule the world for American interests. According to a report sponsored by oil corporations from the Washington Centre for Strategic and International Studies, oil is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of the traditional supply and demand balances, but a determinant of national security and international power.

The U.S. state military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in under two years are expressions of this new supra-market policy. Before we pass over the pattern of facts at work as merely realpolitik, we should note that this armed-state project resembles fascism: not only in war criminal attacks on other countries in violation of international law, but in repudiating market relations to seize others valuable goods by armed force.

Facing Facts

As demagogic glorification of genocidal invasion once again escapes naming by a flood of falsehoods and projections onto the latest U.S. Enemy, we need to remind ourselves of facts that no mass medium once discussed [the period] from October of 2002 to March of 2003. As we lay bare the ruling deceptions here, we should keep in mind the unifying principle which is not seen. U.S. state justifications always project onto the designated Enemy what the U.S. security state is doing itself. If it loudly condemns another weaker states weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, violation of international laws, or attempts to impose its will on the world by terror, then we can deduce that this is exactly what the U.S. is planning more of, but is diverting attention from by accusing others. Test this underlying principle with every international accusation the U.S. makes next, and you will find that it is invariable confirmed.

The tactic works wonderfully with a lapdog press and political class who are excited into a kind of collective delirium by choral denunciations of the foreign demon who is the designated Enemy of the Day. (I will explain why in my analysis ahead of the ruling group-mind.) So exactly does the U.S. security state project its own violent policies onto others that one can tell what vicious policy it is about to escalate next by by the intensity with which the Other is accused of the crime. This is how we can best understand the endless accusation of the Soviet Union of a plot to rule the worldbefore 1991, and how we can best make sense of the official U.S. fixation on global terrorism today. Both predications disclose the inner logic of the U.S. war states own pattern of behaviour. I sometimes wonder whether this is a deliberate strategic tactic of diversion, or a structure of paranoid delusion built into the mind-set of U.S. culture.

Let us in this light examine the principal claims and concealments of the Bush Jr. administration in its pursuit of Iraq:

The Bush administration has tirelessly claimed to be upholding international law in its pressuring of the Security Council into action regarding Iraq’s violation of U.N. resolutions and international law. In fact, since its entry into office the Bush Jr. administration has sabotaged laws, covenants and monitoring protocols to protect individuals and peoples against nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines, small arms, international ballistic missiles, torture, racism, discrimination against women, arbitrary seizure and imprisonment, mistreatment of prisoners, crimes against humanity and war crimes, military weather distortions, biodiversity loss, and international climate destabilisation. Its latest overriding of international law and due process has been the forcible usurpation of the Security Council inspections of Iraq. No rogue state in modern history has remotely matched this continuous and systematic violation of international law and procedures to implement international law.

The Bush administration’s preparation and threat of military invasion against a country thousands of miles from its borders is unequivocally a war crime under international law, including Principles 1, 2 and 6(a)1of the Nuremberg Charter and Article 54 of the Geneva Convention. The fact that this war crime of preparing for and planning an invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led armed forces whatever the UN decides has never been openly discussed promoted the very aggression which the U.N. is constituted to prevent.

It is not as if there were any doubt about the Bush administration’s clear intention to put itself above the law as it incessantly accused Iraq of doing so. It declared from the beginning that it would go it alone with whoever was willing, and yet not a word of this declared threat to international peace and security issued from any U.N. ambassador, including Canadas Bill Graham, that this was a lawless intention and plan.

The effect on Iraqi citizens of the long-planned U.S. war of aggression against Iraq is said to be their liberation. The targeted victims since the first war on Iraq have, however, been most of all infants and children. The Bush administration’s planned Operation Shock and Awe is a self-imagery of Godlike power which is more blind in hubris than in 1991 when the U.S. military assault caused mass infectious disease, child dysentery and birth mutilation by deliberate bombing of civilian electricity sources, sewage and water treatment facilities and by the deployment of nuclear waste in shells and weapons. Over 500,000 children in Iraq have already died as a consequence of the last war according to UNICEF-a figure predicted in 1991 by the New England Journal of Medicine, and substantiated in 1999 by the leading British medical research, Lancet.

Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction about which the Bush regime has most pervasively trumpeted its concern were sold to Saddam at great profit by the U.S., Britain and other Security Council members. This is why Bush officials took the original Iraq report to the U.N. from the Council chair (then the military client state, Colombia), and deleted all the pages documenting these military sales before distributing the text to non-permanent members. Secretary Rumsfeld, meanwhile, has refused to work with the relevant Senate committees to expose and ensure against continued military sales to Iraq or its middlemen by U.S. armament manufacturers.

U.S. demands for Iraq’s compliance with U.N. resolutions are not and have not been its true concern since far more U.N. resolutions over far more years have been ignored by the U.S. military partner, Israel. Thus continuing war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israeli administrations are still perpetrated with impunity in the illegally occupied territories of Palestine-for example, by land and property seizures and continuous enlargement of the illegal occupation, collective punishments of the population, increasing assassinations, and destruction of civilian infrastructure and homes. Twelve to eighteen UN resolutions prior to the inspections were said to have been violated by Iraq during its years of living with militarily enforced destruction of its society. Israel before, and since, has violated 64 UN resolutions with impunity. No double standard of international law has been so long-term, blatant and systematic, except by the U.S. itself.

The regime change all along demanded by the Bush administration cannot benefit the Iraqi people as promised because the projected U.S. military occupation has not been about getting rid of Saddam (who the U.S. armed and supported into power), but has ever more directly been the forced takeover of Iraq’s publicly owned and controlled oil reserves. These reserves since the 1950’s have (despite Saddams U.S.-supported coup detat) financed the most advanced social infrastructure in the Arab world, free education, and universal health care. During the demonization of Iraq over the last 6 months, its public oil revenues have enabled a government program of guaranteed food for all citizens by a publicly run distribution system which the U.N. World Food Program described as the most efficient in the world. With oil as with all else, the greatest enemy to this empire is the civil commons of publicly owned resources which obstructs corporate market control. That the Iraqi government has, moreover, put a run on the U.S. dollar by converting its oil revenues into Euros instead of dollars is another unspeakable fact which is blocked out of all corporate media reports.

Watching the War Crime Unfold

The ultimate target of the U.S. war party has long been the greatest and most accessible high-quality oil reserves on the planet. The Bush oil party has long coveted it, and U.S. military invasion has been the favoured blitzkrieg method for getting it over years of planning – with no response by the Security Council. But world public opinion has not covered its eyes like governments and the corporate media. Turkey’s people were 96% against invasion of Iraq as its government considered large bribes, and Spain’s people were over 90% opposed as its Falangist prime minister joined Tony the War Poodle in barking for the invasion. Over 30 million citizens from across the world demonstrated against a U.S.-led invasion in one weekend, an historically unprecedented event.

Image below: At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.” (Source: Consortiumnews)

The U.S. president’s response to all this has been revealing. He has told the world throughout that the U.N. itself is on trial, with him as God’s judge. The Security Council has been told for months that it either agrees to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, or it is irrelevant. If it fails, the Bush administration will take the law into its own hands and invade distant and weak Iraq as America’s sovereign right. Try to remember when you heard this kind of demagoguery and defiance of international law before.

The difference has been most clearly in the use of the U.N. Pervasive aerial and ground inspections of Iraq’s territory, soften-up bombings of defences in the North and South, and successful commands to destroy short-range missiles which together had largely stripped Iraqs meagre defences by mid-March. During this process, U.S. and allied demands merely escalated from immediate abolition of weapons of mass destruction to-without any media noticing-demands for total disarmament. Best to have a helpless victim. Has history ever witnessed such a corruptly one-sided scheme to destroy and loot a defenceless country?

The Ruling Group-Mind

As I watched the Security Council Meeting on March 19 after military inspections of Iraq were forcibly terminated by the Bush Jr. administration’s decision to take the law into its own hands, I was struck by the intimidation of the Council members. They were in thrall to a ceremony of avoidance. The hard fact that the U.S. administration had just stopped the U.N.’s due process by its decision for lawless armed attack of Iraq was blocked out of view as if it had not been decided. That this massive armed military invasion was a grave violation of international law, the supreme international crime under the Nuremberg Charter, was never mentioned. The ritual of sacrifice prevailed instead as if in collective submission to the implacable ordinance of Fate.

Formal pieties and aversion of the facts ruled. The Secretary-General was congratulated for removing the inspection teams on the instruction of the U.S. adminstration so that they would not be harmed by its illegal invasion. The inspectors were again and again praised for inspecting Iraq’s military possessions before the full-scale illegal invasion forcibly prevented the completion of their work. Much angst was displayed for the humanitarian catastrophe about to unfold, with none mentioning that the lawless usurpation of U.N. process by the blitkrieg invasion of a suffering poor country would cause the mass terror. The long genocide was diplomatically sanitised by abstractions. In the case of the U.S., Britain and Spain, Saddam Hussein was held solely responsible.

Repeated ritual mantras of concern for international peace and security, alleged Iraq government violations not substantiated by the inspectors, official regrets, collective self- blaming, and much talk of rebuilding the society about to be destroyed were limned in a sleepwalk of official euphemisms. The theme that bound them all was the silence on the U.S. planned war-criminal attack in violation of the will and the legal process of the U.N. Security Council itself. Kofi Annan almost spoke out when he advised that a belligerent country is responsible under law for the costs of occupation. But the U.N. and Canada were soon ready to pay for picking up the pieces of another mass destruction of a poor society by U.S.-led forces.

I remembered all the history and accounts I had read of the Third Reich and the cowardice of official appeasement that enabled every step. The appeasement now was on the level of the mind itself. No-one dared to say what was happening. Threats and bribes by the U.S. had for months saturated the proceedings of the Council’s judgement, but there were to their great credit few takers of the blood money. The Security Council had repudiated the U.S.-led war by an overwhelming rejection of any motion for it. For the U.S. now to still lead an invasion was self-evidently against the Security Council’s will and decision, and thus wholly illegal. Yet there was a strange refusal to name the crime, the supreme international crime of a war of aggression against another state. One listened in vain for one explicit reference to the violation of the U.N. Charter, of the Nuremberg Charter, of international criminal law, of the Secretary-General’s own previous statement that a U.S. attack without Security Council support would be illegal, and of the usurpation of the will and process of the U.N. Security Council itself.

On the contrary, Iraq was being held accountable to obey the Council’s every demand to strip its meagre defences as huge U.S. and British armed forces formed on its borders. Ever louder U.S. threats of armed invasion outside the law and against Security Council vote was left to proceed as if it was a natural event. Everywhere in the media, the inevitable war was bowed before as an ordinance of destiny. It was only now a question of viewers watching U.S. forces destroy a society at will and with impunity, an ideal mass market site for the entertainment of lawless power. No-one thought to notice from within the Security Council Chamber and official global culture that every step of the mass terror against an essentially defenceless people was planned, chosen and executed in defiance of all international law by a sitting member state.

The monstrous construction had no author. Responsibility fell only on the victim. The U.S. became another onlooker at the inevitable war. Once it invaded, it became magnanimous in assigning the costs to others to pay for its mass destruction. It was now ready to co-operate with its international partners in the rebuilding of the country that it destroyed. No-one inside official society outside thought to hold the U.S. accountable for what it did. There is “no alternative” took another meaning. Now the no-alternative world the U.S. rules means criminal war invasion as an act of God.

The New Fundamentalism: America is God

As you observe the criminal war invasion of Iraq, the round-the-clock commentary and pictures, and the aftermath, watch for a silent general fact. There will no end of detailed discussion of the military operations of attack and occupation of a country rendered defenceless by Security Council demands, with much admiration and vicarious self- congratulation at the new weapons and strategic moves of the American Superpower. There will be no end of experts and commentators communicating adoringly to audiences about the high-tech assault instruments which are being tested on a third-world people to see how they work. Its a little like a high-school science experiment, advised the Pentagon Joint Chief of Staff to the militarily embedded CNN medium of public news.

The fact at the centre of the whole conflict and long in dispute will, however, soon be put down the memory hole with no one noticing. No one in the media or government will point out that the biological and chemical weapons that Iraq was declared to be hiding are not used, and did not in fact exist. No one will think to notice that this, the main justification of the war, the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam, was from start to finish a vast and criminal big lie. No one will wonder at their own cowardly complicity in the long train of destructive deceit and war crime even as the invading armies sweep across the country and the 3000 sorties of bombs fall with no hint of a chemical or biological weapon or nuclear device. Least of all will servelings of the ruling group-mind connect back to the Third Reich’s prototype of aggressive war. It is the Formula. Blame terrorists as the cause of the country’s police state measures. Accuse every country attacked of being an imminent threat to it to justify the invasion. Denounce all resistance as unpatriotic. Attack and occupy the weak country with total weaponry. The formula repeats as long as it is not called out.

The group-mind cannot compute what does not fit its fixed presuppositions. So predictable outcomes follow as if prescribed by the laws of nature. The inevitable war occurs like el Nino. Only the terrible infliction of damages are thought worth perceiving or talking about. The moral debate is silenced, left to the world’s peoples in the streets where only passing painted signs can speak. The co-ordinates of international law and the rogue war party in control of the White House are blocked of every discussion as if they did not exist. There will, in particular, be no discussion of this administration’s illegal presidency, its ever more ruinous failure to govern effectively at any level of the U.S. economy, the environmental meltdown which it leads, or the unprecedentedly pervasive corruption of its lead corporate gang-from all of which the latest orchestrated war is the ongoing system of violent diversion. The distraction and attack rhythm of one war after another will, if it is not seen through, continue to succeed with the Formula until the world is subjugated across its civilisations. As long as the self-evident can be denied, there is nothing to stop it. Discharges of condemnation of Saddam Hussein can occupy the mind instead, until the next Enemy is wheeled into the war theatre to extend the U.S. war states rule.

In Canada, the CBC and its retinue of U.S. explainers and apologists will report the world to us so we cannot see the meaning of what is happening. The local academy will occasionally provide the choral affirmation on cue. Thus Janice Stein of the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre will reassure us on CBC News coverage on March 20, the day that the U.S. crime against peace began, that We are targeting Iraq’s leadership and not its civilians. All are one in Americas view of the world as itself. What cannot be discussed is the U.S. war crime itself, even to deny it. It is unspeakable – so long as the ruling group-mind remains the invisible prison of our collective life.

The moral syntax of the American group-mind is the inner logic of the problem. In this era, the group-mind is American. All its principles are presupposed as the way that God is presupposed by the religious fundamentalist – an all-powerful, all-knowing and jealous ruler of the world, which none may doubt without social opprobrium and attack. U.S. witch-hunts of those who oppose the religion of America is the creed’s fanatical mode. But the creed is not confined to expression within America’s church of self-adoration. It is on a crusade across the world’s continents, with ruinous destabilization or armed attack of those who do not submit to its will for freedom.

The God of America is primitive. It worships itself. But there are a set of silently regulating principles at work through all the phenomena of its rule which together constitute the ruling group-mind which has imprisoned global culture within its premises since 9-11.

Presupposition 1 of this ruling group-mind is that the U.S. national security state is America.

This assertion is never directly stated because that would reveal the absurdity of the equation. But the assumption nevertheless underlies every statement that has proceeded from U.S. government offices since 9-11. This preconscious equation explains, for example, why even the U.S. government’s official opposition, the Democratic Party, has abdicated from political responsibility in its fear of appearing to oppose unjustified wars against essentially defenceless third-world societies in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are incarcerated within the ruling structure of mind, more paralysed than 1930 Germans in their dread of being named as unpatriotic. This is a fear that can only be explained by the equation of the state military command and its apparatus with America. Beneath the surface phenomena of party politics rules the instituted group-mind in terms of which perception itself is constructed.

Thus the equation of America to its armed state apparatus is never publicly challenged in the official culture of the West because the equation is assumed a priori across the official leaderships of American allies. No-one who houses the false equation can tell them apart. They cannot see the demonstrable falsehoods of the war state, the overthrow of the Republic’s democratic traditions, and least of all the safety of millions of innocent civilians in other countries: because they assume America and its national security apparatus are one and the same. Since they love America, and America is it, they cannot distinguish their beloved country from the criminal gang institutions of the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the CIA. As these rogue secret societies rule across the world by the force of armed terror, mass disinformation, secret narco-links and political bribery and coercion at every level, lovers of America are obliged to defend this criminal global domination as America. This absurd equation obliges them to be, in short, blind dupes. It then further misleads them into supposing that anyone who opposes a gangster state rule of the world is anti-American. One absurdity builds onto another. The disorder ends as a paranoid mass cult characterised as patriotism, just as in the 1930’s with the worlds most powerful industrial state. It is in this false equation at the baseline of the group-mind that we find the kernel of the worlds problem – America’s self- definition as absolutist armed force unbound by fact or international law.

Presupposition 2 is that America is the ultimate source and moving line of the world’s freedom and goodness, God’s material embodiment on earth.

This assumption too is presupposed as true by definition, the prime article of faith of a fanatic religion. Full-spectrum dominance and pre-emptive attack of threats before they appear are not merely clinically paranoid delusions of power and persecution. They follow from the underlying and increasingly absolute assumption that America is God, the source of all Freedom and Goodness on the planet. The expressions of this deranged presupposition are evident in every speech of the former alcohol and cocaine addict occupying the White House, and there is no evident opposition from the parishioners of U.S. official culture.

Any indirect questioning or challenge of this first moral premise of the group-mind is attacked as a betrayal of the country and what it holds dear. American freedom comes to mean, then, only what establishes and maximizes the absolute right of the U.S. to command the world – specifically, to command as inevitable that all societies adopt an American-style market, American values and culture, and American military dominance in all areas of the globe as its vital interests. How do we test the rule of this fanatic basis of thought? It is expressed in Bush Doctrine policy documents throughout. But we can more easily discover its ruling principle at work by asking whether there is any limit placed anywhere on what the U.S. and vassal corporate states have the right to demand of other peoples and societies – including unconditional support of full-scale war against destitute societies over ten thousand miles from American borders.

Anything may go in the way of attack-dog journalism, but one hint of question of this ruling assumption that America is the moving line of the world’s freedom is heresy. The assumption is thus internalised prior to censorship. Self-censorship is this regime’s centre of gravity, and holds the group-mind in its prison. Those who oppose it hate freedom. Loyalty to this ultimate premise of social and political thought is what regulates the mind at a preconscious level prior to statement. It is the identity structure of the mob-mind across the world.

Principle 3 follows as a logical consequent from Principle 2. America is always and necessarily right in all conflicts with other nations or peoples or social forces.

This is not a truth which facts can disprove, because it is true by definition in the ruling group-mind. Disproving facts are irrelevant or of no consequence, even if by some chance they make it through the gates of the corporate media. This third regulating assumption explains why even the hardest facts soon disappear from sight if they throw doubt on America’s infallible moral superiority in cases of international conflict – for example the conviction of the U.S. by the International Court for its war criminal actions against Nicaragua, along with the $13.2 billion damages which were never paid.

Beneath the selection and exclusion of facts and perspectives which regulate editorial offices and policies, this third principle of the ruling group-mind too regulates perception and conversation beneath direct control. Before an exposing word is spoken, it is ruled out from within. It is an intersubjective operation, like the thought-field of playing a game. Any fact or argument which calls into question America’s moral superiority to any adversary is known to be hostile to freedom and the good in advance of consideration.

Principles 4 and 5 follow suit as ultimate moral imperatives for all Americans and their allies.

Any people or nation or social force which does not side with or opposes the U.S. government is evil (Principle 4), and so must, as an Enemy of world freedom and justice, be attacked by all means available-including pre-emptive armed force before the Enemy presents a threat (Principle 5).

Principles 4 and 5 have sharpened into patriotic absolutes with the Bush Jr. regime. Not even fabricated evidence – like the Gulf of Tonkin attack off Vietnam or the electricity cut-off of infant incubators in Iraq in 1991 – are thought any longer essential necessary to justify a military attack on another people’s territory and society. As George Bush Jr. said to a West Point audience this year: “If we wait for threats to materialise, we will have waited too long.” There is, therefore, no need for the threat to be real. Threats only need to be declared. That is is why the attack on Iraq by U.S. and British armed forces did not require anyone else to confirm that there was, in fact, a threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction being used by terrorists against America. The evil is known, as with witchcraft, by the accusation itself. Once accused, the Enemy becomes such by definition – because materialisation by fact is too late. Those who question the designation side with the Enemy. You are with us, or for the terrorists. Bush’s rage against French opposition to the war of aggression against Iraq thus follows necessarily. The logic of the ruling group- mind prescribes reality prior to its construction.

A self-evident baseline of entitlement is thus instituted for the rest of the world which is not spoken. America can go to war against accused enemies as it chooses on the basis of the self-propelling operations of its ruling group-mind alone. All one has to do is trigger the known stimuli which activate its value-set and its attendant emotions of rage. Since 9- 11, majority opinion support for Americas New War in any form follows from this lockstep of the group-mind. It is predictable so long as it remains unexposed to view.

*

Prof. John McMurtry PhD (London) is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the author of books and articles published and translated from Latin to Japan, including the three volumes of Philosophy and World Problems for UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems and The Cancer Stage of Capitalism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on States of Cruelty: The Dead Refugees of Manus Island. Australia’s Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Was “The 1968 Movement”? Japan’s Experience in A Global Perspective

Donald Trump’s plan for a more muscular US nuclear posture got a ringing endorsement from the increasingly right-wing government of Japan. Not long after the Trump administration released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in early February, Foreign Minister Taro Kono said he “highly appreciates” the new approach to US nuclear weapons policy, including the emphasis on low-yield nuclear options the United States and Japan can rely on to respond to non-nuclear threats. 

Kono’s endorsement of Trump’s NPR was a surprise to those who saw him as a moderate who could temper Prime Minister Abe’s geopolitical ambitions, which include amending Japan’s pacifist constitution to allow for an expansion of the size and role of Japan’s military forces.

Support within the conservative leadership of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for an increased US emphasis on the role of nuclear weapons is not new. Nine years ago, foreign ministry officials loyal to the LDP testified to a US congressional commission advising the Obama administration on US nuclear weapons policy. Their testimony reads like a blueprint for some of the most controversial sections of Trump’s NPR—especially its emphasis on low-yield nuclear weapons, which used to be called tactical nuclear weapons because they were options for fighting limited nuclear wars against nuclear and non-nuclear states, rather than strategically deterring the use of nuclear weapons by others.

Prime Minister Abe recently promoted one of the officials who testified to the commission in 2009, Takeo Akiba, to the top bureaucratic post in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Akiba and the rest of the LDP’s nuclear hawks may have had to wait a long time to get what they wanted, but their view of the role of US nuclear weapons in Asia is about to become official US government policy.

Then and Now

UCS obtained a copy of a statement Mr. Akiba submitted to the congressional commission on 25 February 2009, along with hand-written notes—taken by commission staff—of responses to questions. That statement, titled “Japan’s Perspective on the U.S.’s Extended Deterrence,” makes two primary requests:

  • A US presidential statement that places “nuclear deterrence as the core of Japan – US security arrangements.”
  • The maintenance of US nuclear weapons capabilities that are: “(a) flexible, (b) credible, (c) prompt, (d) discriminating and selective, (e) stealthy/demonstrable, and (f) sufficient to dissuade others from expanding or modernizing their nuclear capabilities.”

Obama’s 2010 NPR undoubtedly disappointed the Japanese officials who submitted that statement. Obama emphasized the declining role of US nuclear weapons in regional security:

When the Cold War ended, the United States withdrew its forward deployed nuclear weapons from the Pacific region, including removing nuclear weapons from naval surface vessels and general-purpose submarines. Since then, it has relied on its central strategic forces and the capacity to redeploy nuclear systems in East Asia in times of crisis.

Although nuclear weapons have proved to be a key component of U.S. assurances to allies and partners, the United States has relied increasingly on non-nuclear elements to strengthen regional security architectures, including a forward U.S. conventional presence and effective theater ballistic missile defenses. As the role of nuclear weapons is reduced in U.S. national security strategy, these non-nuclear elements will take on a greater share of the deterrence burden.

President Trump’s NPR discusses the future role of US nuclear options in Asia in a way that is much more in line with the preferences in the statement Mr. Akiba submitted to the congressional commission in 2009. Trump’s NPR states:

Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression… In the 2010 NPR, the United States announced the retirement of its previous nuclear-armed SLCM [sea-launched cruise missile], which for decades had contributed to deterrence and the assurance of allies, particularly in Asia. We will immediately begin efforts to restore this capability…

Mr. Akiba’s testimony to the US congressional commission suggested a preference for retaining the SLCM President Obama retired, since it “provides the flexibility of options (namely, it is low-yield, sea-based (stealthy), stand-off (survivable) and can loiter).” That SLCM was the nuclear Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile, TLAM/N.

These types of “flexible” nuclear options figure prominently in Trump’s NPR. The Japanese statement defined nuclear flexibility as having weapons that “could hold a wide variety of adversary threats at risk.” These threats included “deep and hardened underground facilities, movable targets, cyber attack, anti-satellite attack and anti-access/area denial capabilities.” In this case, the Japanese statement’s use of “anti-access/area denial” was a reference to China’s conventional military capabilities.

The Trump NPR gives Japan’s nuclear hawks all the “flexibility” they asked for in 2009, backed up by an unambiguous declaration that the United States will use nuclear weapons to respond to non-nuclear attacks, including “new forms of aggression” like cyber attacks. It also appears to endorse a strategy of offsetting China’s conventional military capabilities, including space and cyber capabilities, with new US nuclear weapons. The Trump administration’s intention to use nuclear weapons to counter non-nuclear Chinese military capabilities is repeated in the administration’s National Defense Strategy.

Making Okinawa Nuclear Again?

The handwritten notes on the 2009 Japanese statement indicate one of the commission co-chairs, former US Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, asked if Japan could adjust its domestic policies to prepare for the redeployment of US nuclear weapons in Okinawa. Mr. Akiba responded by warning Schlesinger there was still strong domestic support for Japan’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which were first announced in 1967, and subsequently reaffirmed by various members of the Japanese government as well as a 1971 vote in the Japanese Diet. The principles declare that Japan would not possess, manufacture, or allow the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan.

But despite these concerns about Japanese public opinion, Akiba told Schlesinger that preparing to return US nuclear weapons to the Japanese island of Okinawa “sounds persuasive to me.” Given the Trump NPR’s emphasis on new tactical nuclear weapons that can be redeployed in Asia, and the Abe government’s unequivocal support for Trump’s NPR, it is worth investigating the possibility both sides have agreed to upgrade US munitions storage facilities in Okinawa so they can store US nuclear weapons on the island.

There are several reasons why redeploying nuclear weapons in Okinawa may make sense to bureaucrats, like Mr. Akiba, who support an increased role for US nuclear weapons in Asia.

The first is the existence of a secret agreement between Japan and the United States that allows the US military to redeploy US nuclear weapons in Okinawa. The agreement was signed by US President Nixon and Japanese Prime Minister Sato in 1969 as part of the legal process that returned sovereign control of the island to the government of Japan. The United States had occupied Okinawa since the end of WWII and built an expansive set of US military bases that remain there today. Some of those bases housed US nuclear weapons, which were removed in 1972 at the request of the Japanese government.

The agreement was kept secret for decades and both sides still refuse to discuss it publicly. Many of the details were finally made public in an official investigation conducted by Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs during a brief period when the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) controlled the government from September 2009 to December 2012.

Another reason for redeploying US nuclear weapons in Okinawa that might sound persuasive to Mr Akiba is that US and Japanese officials can use ambiguities in the language of the Nixon-Sato agreement, and tight controls on the dissemination of information about related bilateral discussions, to obscure the process that would be followed if the United States decided to make Okinawa nuclear again.

Schlesinger’s question and the Japanese answer suggest the United States would ask the Japanese government for permission. But that permission need not be explicit, or public. It may not even be necessary. The language of the Nixon-Sato agreement is intentionally vague and suggests simple notification at a relatively low level of the bureaucracy might be enough. This kind of low level agreement would give the prime minister and other LDP officials the same kind of plausible deniability they used to avoid discussing the Sato-Nixon agreement on redeploying nuclear weapons in Okinawa for more than 50 years.

The potential presence of US nuclear weapons in Okinawa would be further obscured from public view by the US government’s non-confirm, non-deny policy on military deployments. US silence on the question would make it a lot easier for the Japanese government to consent to redeployment. In the absence of an external inquiry, US nuclear weapons could be put back in Okinawa quietly, without public knowledge or debate.

The final reason Okinawa might sound persuasive to Mr. Akiba is that the United States is building a new military base in the Okinawan village of Henoko. The project includes significant upgrades to a munitions storage depot, adjacent to the new base, where US nuclear weapons were stored in the past. Henoko is specifically mentioned in the 1969 Nixon-Sato agreement as a mutually acceptable location for the possible redeployment of US nuclear weapons in Japan.

Birds of a Feather

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is one of Donald Trump’s most loyal international supporters. He was the first world leader to visit Trump Tower during the transition and he highlighted his close personal friendship with the US president during recent Japanese elections.

Mr. Akiba is Abe’s chief foreign policy advisor, especially on the question of extended nuclear deterrence. Akiba selected, organized and led the first several Japanese delegations to the US-Japan Extended Deterrence Dialogue (EDD) and has toured US nuclear weapons facilities. With the release of the new US nuclear posture review and the Abe government’s unapologetic endorsement, it seems clear that all three men agree on the need to increase the role of US nuclear weapons in Asia.

The LDP support for the Trump NPR may seem surprising to many members of Congress, whose last impression of Prime Minister Abe’s opinions on nuclear weapons is the image of him greeting President Obama in Hiroshima. At a recent meeting in Washington an exceptionally well-informed national security staffer of a veteran member of the House, when informed of Foreign Minister Kono’s statement of support for Trump’s NPR, asked if Abe had publicly corrected Kono’s misstatement.

US opponents of Trump’s NPR should take note. As the debate over the NPR unfolds in the coming days, weeks and months, the LDP officials voicing their support for Trump’s NPR do not represent the majority of the Japanese public and their elected representatives, who are opposed to a larger role for US nuclear weapons in the defense of Japan. But they do represent the views of Prime Minister Abe, who has lined up firmly behind the Trump NPR.

***

Japanese Government Officials Call on U.S. to Maintain Its “Nuclear Umbrella” and Bring Back Nuclear Weapons to Okinawa

Commentary by Steve Rabson

In his February 15, 2018 article, Gregory Kulacki, China Project Manager of the Union of Concerned Scientists, reports that a high official in Japan’s Foreign Ministry testified before a U.S. Congressional committee in 2009 in favor of bringing back nuclear weapons to Okinawa. As recorded in a Congressional memo, Akiba Takeo stated that preparing for the return of nuclear weapons to Okinawa “sounds persuasive to me.” In September 2015, Akiba was promoted to Deputy Foreign Minister, the top administrative post in the Foreign Ministry. At a news conference in Tokyo on April 25, 2018 Kulacki criticized Japan’s continued reliance on the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” as a major barrier to any effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. In efforts by the Union of Concerned Scientists to promote a dialogue between the United States and China to foster nuclear arms control, he said, “Japan is the single biggest obstacle to my job.”1

Central to the discussion is the possible role of Okinawa as a site for U.S. nuclear weapons, a possibility closely related to plans for a new base to be built at Henoko in the face of strong Okinawan opposition. Concerning the possible return of nuclear weapons to Okinawa, Kulacki writes that the “reason Okinawa might sound persuasive to Mr. Akiba is that the United States is building a new military base in the Okinawan village of Henoko. The project includes significant upgrades to an ammunition storage depot, adjacent to the new base, where US nuclear weapons were stored in the past.” Kulacki warned Okinawans that, if the new airbase is built, it could host nuclear weapons at the storage depot.2 Joining a March 3, 2016 protest rally in Henoko at the site of the planned base, he urged Okinawans to continue to oppose its construction.3

From July, 1967 to June, 1968 I was stationed in Henoko as a U.S. Army draftee at the ammunition storage depot where “tactical” nuclear weapons were stored. There were nuclear surface-to-air (anti-aircraft) missiles (Nike Hercules) that were deployed on hilltops and at airfields in Okinawa; artillery rockets (Honest John and Little John); and landmines (Atomic Demolition Munitions). At that time there were also nuclear surface-to-surface missiles (Mace-B) at Kadena Airbase that could reach all of China and the Soviet Far East. At the base in Henoko, the Army’s 137th Ordnance Company, included a platoon of infantry soldiers with sentry dogs on guard 24/7. In addition, a Marine detachment at neighboring Camp Schwab conducted drills in which they surrounded the base in full battle gear. There were “no stopping” signs on the road that ran by the base, and anyone who stopped their car, even to change a flat tire, was arrested at gunpoint and held in a detention cell for search and interrogation.

In 1959 one of the Nike Hercules missiles deployed at Naha Airbase had fired accidentally killing two Army crewmen and injuring one. The warhead bounced out and rolled on the ground, but did not detonate. At the 137th we were worried about the mission of the Nike Hercules because, although it was capable of destroying a wing of Soviet aircraft, the nuclear explosion in the air would release radiation endangering Okinawans and us on the ground.

Shortly before Okinawa’s reversion to Japanese administration in 1972, with all U.S. bases intact, the high security disappeared and the Army’s 137th Ordnance Company became part of the Marines’ Camp Schwab (Gate 2).

Camp Schwab Gate 2 in 2014 photograph

The invoices recording that the Japanese government paid for the removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa are the first and only time the U.S. government has acknowledged their presence.4 Since they were removed, the Marines have used the base to store conventional (non-nuclear) ammunition. However, the nuclear weapons storage area remains intact to this day with close-cropped grass and sod-covered concrete storage igloos with steel doors.

Storage area with fortified underground igloos that contained nuclear weapons before reversion (2014 photograph)

High fence surrounding storage area (2014 photograph)

Meanwhile, after-effects of the base persist. Three Army veterans of the 137th from the 1960s have filed compensation claims with the U.S. government for contracting forms of cancer linked to radiation exposure. One lost an eye to melanoma. Another died in 2016, a few weeks before his claim hearing was scheduled. In addition, there remains the troubling possibility for both Americans and Okinawans that serious environmental hazards remain at this former nuclear weapons storage depot in Henoko. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Over 1,000 . . . locations, including both operational and abandoned sites, are contaminated with radiation. These sites range in size from small corners in laboratories to massive nuclear weapons facilities. The contamination may be found in the air, water, and soil, as well as equipment in buildings.”5

In late 1991 President George H. W. Bush ordered all tactical nuclear weapons removed from bases outside the U.S.6 Now, in a reversal of long-standing policy, the Trump administration plans to equip “low-yield” (previously called “tactical’) nuclear warheads on sea-launched missiles. Jon Wolfsthal, special assistant to President Obama on arms control and nonproliferation, describes this change as “totally unnecessary.” And he calls putting a low-yield nuclear weapon on ballistic missile submarines “pretty dumb” because firing it would give away the submarine’s position.7 Nuclear weapons do not “defend” Japan, but make an attack on the country much more likely in the event of war. The proposal that they be brought back to Okinawa is an idea out of “Dr. Strangelove.”

*

Gregory Kulacki is China Project Manager and Senior Analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He writes writing on the People’s Republic of China focuses on cross-cultural communication between the United States and China.

Steve Rabson is Professor Emeritus of East Asian Studies, Brown University.

Notes

Naotaka Fujita, “U.S. analyst: Japan’s nuke stance obstructs arms control,” The Asahi Shimbun, April 26, 2018.

Yukiyo Zaha, “Foreign Affairs Vice Minister Akiba denies making his 2009 statementRyukyu Shimpo,March 6, 2018.

American scientist visits Henoko to support protesters,” Ryukyu Shimpo, March 3, 2016. 

William M. Arkin and William Burr, “Where They Were,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol 55, No. 6. 

See article at EPA website: here.

Stephen Young, “25 Years Ago President Changed Nuclear Policy,” Union of Concerned Scientists,September 27, 2016.

Jonathon Freedland, “Trump is the real nuclear threat,” The Guardian, August 11, 2017.

All images in this article are from the author.

War is impossible where there is love, therefore war is not love.

Every baby on earth is born helpless, innocent and without knowledge. Who programs and indoctrinates innocent minds to become killers? Children are like sponges and all parents know this, but so also do those who use and abuse youth as instruments to kill, murder, torture and hate other human beings.

How on earth do human beings think war is a “necessary evil” or “fighting for freedom”, when the reality is that all wars are implemented for the special interests of those in power and never for common sense or valid purpose? Every war is fueled by mass-propaganda, lies and twisted reasoning. War is proof that those who are decision makers are insane human beings.

No young man or woman who thinks they are strong has a chance against bullets, bombs or chemical poisons. All young people who think they “serve” some special patriotic purpose are so programmed and indoctrinated, that they have no clue of what real life on earth is all about.

Who knows and understands that all human life is terminal and that every human being on earth will die? Death is a reality for everyone in the military, everyone in politics, everyone who goes to church and to every human being who ever lives in this short life span.

Young minds are obviously easy to deceive and they are deceived by the millions and the billions. No one who thinks “serving” in the military is some kind of “God” thing, has a clue about reality. Patriotism is a man-made system and is not based upon loving others as brothers and sisters, but is based upon a selfish man-made arbitrary system that is destroying life on earth.

So folks, what gain to those in power is the military?

What gain is power, control or wealth when the end result of all human life is death? What gain is the control of all the world’s oil, mineral resources, geography or human population, when in time everyone will perish due to old age or by whatever means?

One has to believe that based upon the fruit and the decision making of those who wield power over the world, that these human beings are literally insane humans, who have no conscience and are incapable of sound minds. The youth of the world are merely pawns in the game of life.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War is Impossible Where There is Love: When the Minds and Hearts of Youth Are Programmed to be Killers

 

Sino/US trade disputes remain far from resolved. Trade war neither country wants remains a possibility, assuring losers, not winners if launched by Trump.

A US delegation headed by Wilbur Ross is in Beijing, meeting with their counterparts led by Vice Premier Liu He, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency saying:

“The achievements reached by both China and the US should be based on the premise that the two sides are coming from opposite directions and will not fight a trade war,” adding:

“If the United States introduces trade sanctions, including levying additional tariffs (on Chinese products), all the economic and trade agreements reached by both sides will not go into effect.”

Talks are focusing on narrowing China’s large trade surplus with America – a record $375 billion last year.

Economist Michael Hudson noted Washington’s double standard in dealing with other countries – on trade issues, saying US officials “push…free trade for other countries, protectionism for the United States alone.”

Mid-19th century US economic development depended on prioritizing industrialization, a continental railroad system, a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools.

It featured public education along with a Land Grant College system establishing free higher education.

What Diogenes called “the foundation of every state,” father of American education Horace Mann once called mankind’s “greatest discovery, (the) great equalizer, common” to all – adding “(t)he public school is the greatest discovery made by man,” the bedrock of societal development.

The Homestead Act gave settlers ownership rights, encouraging land development. Washington supported all branches of sciences. It promoted standardization and mass production.

Economic growth was stimulated by a 600% increase in government spending, along with cheap credit focused on industrialization.

Lincoln did it with United States Notes called Greenbacks – the federal government in charge of its own money, not the Wall Street owned, operated and controlled Federal Reserve banking cartel.

Early development tariffs protected and promoted domestic industrial growth. Washington calls it unfair for China to support its economy the way America did during its earlier development year.

The US promotes global privatization and neoliberal harshness. It wants its own corporate interests benefitting at the expense of other countries.

It wants America having an unfair trade advantage over other nations, making them dependent on US foreign policy.

The Trump regime calls nations, like China, having a trade surplus with America “unfair trade,” wanting the US to be advantaged over all other countries.

Beijing resists his efforts to prevent transforming the nation into a leading worldwide technology competitor.

Its “Made in China 2025” calls for establishing global leadership in key high-tech areas. It won’t tolerate efforts by Washington or other countries to compromise its objectives.

According to China analyst He Weiwen,

Beijing “is willing to sit down and negotiate. The country does have a need to import more consumer goods and natural gas. But it is also well prepared. If the US imposes tariffs on Chinese products, the Chinese side” will respond in kind.

A Final Comment

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch (GTW) asked if Wilbur Ross is negotiating with China for Washington or his own business interests, saying:

He and/or his family “may benefit from a $125 million stake in a liquefied natural gas shipping (LNG) company called Navigator that could profit from the new US gas shipments to China that Ross is slated to negotiate during his…trade” talks.

His “conflicts of interest call into question in whose interest Ross will be negotiating” during trade talks with China.

GTW director Lori Wallach said the following:

“Secretary Ross making more gas export deals instead of addressing the Chinese policies hurting the US manufacturing sector that President Donald Trump pledged to revive smacks of self-dealing,” adding:

“(T)hat scent is in the air, given Trump just personally intervened to reverse national security sanctions against Chinese firm ZTE after a Chinese government firm bailed out a real estate development in which the Trump Organization was invested.”

GTW cited Ross’ conflicts of interest throughout his tenure as commerce secretary, calling them “advanced priorities that benefit his holdings in shipping and natural gas firms.”

*

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: Iran has restricted the flow of the cross-border Little Zab River. Photo: Rudaw video

The water crisis has spread in southern and central provinces of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region as dams built by Turkey and Iran, irrespective of international laws, slow the flow of rivers into Iraq to a trickle.

There are growing fears up to seven million people will be displaced due to the dramatic fall in water resources.

“Nine months ago, the Iraqi water resources ministry warned of water shortage during this summer. It called for necessary measures to be taken to tackle the issue,” Iraq’s Water Resources Minister Hassan al-Janabi told reporters on Saturday.

“The government responded to us, forming a high level committee comprising of many parties from agriculture, interior, defense, industry, electricity, housing and reconstruction and municipalities as well as the Iraqi Media Network in order to tackle the matter in question on a national level in case of water decrease,” he added.

The committee has recently met to set out a 24 point plan to address the problem, he said.

The Kurdistan Region has also fallen victim to the water crisis, as neighboring Iran has created dams on rivers flowing into its territory.

The town of Qaladze is on the brink of catastrophe after Iran restricted the flow of the cross-border Little Zab River.

“There are protocols and memorandums of understanding between Iraq and Iran concerning joint waters, but Iran has not activated its committees yet, despite plenty of meetings held between both sides regarding the mechanisms of water release,” Hassan Safar, head of the National Center for Water Resources, told Rudaw.

Iran is not committed to border water flows with Iraq, he said.

Under international law, countries that have plentiful water are not allowed to build dams on rivers flowing into neighboring countries, he said.

What Iran is doing is “contrary to the international water conventions such as Helsinki Convention and many other international conventions concerning water and rivers shared by more than one country,” Safar added.

He accused Iran of changing the direction of the Karun River so that it spills into the Shatt al-Arab and that is why “the Shatt al-Arab river has become very salty.”

Rahman Khani, head of the Darbandikhan Dam, warned the establishment of dams by Iran has caused water levels to fall at his facility.

A series of earthquakes have also hit the dam and created cracks, forcing engineers to reduce water savings, he said.

He expects “an environmental catastrophe” as the water released to Iraq in the future will be contaminated. Khani urged the Iraqi government to engage in talks with Iran.

Iran is not the only state responsible for Iraq’s water crisis.

Turkey has recently created a concrete dam named Ilisu on the Tigris along the border of Mardin and Şırnak Provinces in Turkey. It is devoted to hydroelectric power production, flood control, and water storage.

In a Facebook post late last month, water minister Janabi warned about the dramatic reduction of water at the Mosul Dam, urging people to reduce their water consumption.

“I am always keen to inform citizens of the reality of water situation … as the ministry works to overcome the crisis,” Jaban said.

He also posted four graphic images demonstrating the impact.

“The four images below show the Lake of Mosul Dam. The first is of the dam lake on a day like today a year ago, and the second is of yesterday. Please note the clear difference between the two reservoirs, which is about three billion cubic meters.”

In his last meeting with Turkish authorities last year concerning the creation of the Ilisu dam, almost 100 kilometers from the Iraqi border, Zeyad Abdullah Saeed, manager of Duhok water directorate, said the Baghdad delegation wanted the best portion of water be released to Iraq to those Iraqi provinces situated on the Tigris River.

He said at the time the Baghdad delegation opposed a suggestion from Turkish authorities saying they would only release 60 billion cubic meters of water into Iraq. Baghdad rejected the idea, pointing out the demand of cities on the Tigris River alone is 90 billion cubic meters.

Turkey’s Ilisu dam was supposed to start restricting and saving water from June 1 after Ankara agreed to release 90 billion cubic meters of water to Iraq.

He believes the work of the Ilisu dam will not greatly impact water flows into Iraq.

Fatih Yildiz, Turkish ambassador to Iraq, tweeted on Saturday he would pass on Iraq’s growing concerns of a water scarcity caused by Turkish dams.

“I see the complaints from our Iraqi friends regarding water. I am receiving your messages. I will take all your complaints and messages to my capital not only as an ambassador. It is my duty as your friend and as someone originally from Baghdad.”

An Iraqi technical delegation will soon head to Turkey, he said, insisting his country only built the dam after consulting Iraq.

“Turkey, which considers Tigris and Euphrates waters as shared waters, will continue managing this water efficiently,” he said.

*

All images in this article are from the author.

Selected Articles: Peace Is a Cliché

June 3rd, 2018 by Global Research News

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.

*     *     *

Peace Is a Cliché: When the West Cannot Control the World Unopposed It Means War

By Andre Vltchek, June 03, 2018

Today, some 60 percent of Kenyans live in slums; some of the toughest in Africa. Some of these ‘settlements’, like Mathare and Kibera are housing at least one million people, in the most despicable, terrible conditions.

Pipeline Geopolitics: The US is Against Russia’s Nord Stream II Because of the “Three Seas Initiative”

By Andrew Korybko, June 03, 2018

The second direct underwater pipeline between Russia and Germany is continuing to come under heavy pressure from the US, which is completely against its construction and even threatened to sanction those who are involved with it.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 03, 2018

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine –coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

Israeli Terror Against Gaza: Solidarity and Activism in an Age of Imperial Decline

By Junaid S. Ahmad and Zehra Yilmaz, June 02, 2018

The world just witnessed the unashamed assault and massacre of nonviolent Palestinian Gazans protesting the grotesquely named ‘border fence’ – in reality, a barbaric cage that contains and controls the world’s largest open air prison and its Palestinian inmates. It is, what the Israeli sociologist Baruch Goldstein called the world’s largest concentration camp – not mincing his words, despite how provocatively that sounds to those who know the horror of that term in the context of the Holocaust.

America is In a Debt Trap Death Spiral

By F. William Engdahl, June 02, 2018

The US economy and its financial structures have never recovered from the great financial meltdown of 2008 despite the passage of ten years. Little discussion has been given to the fact that the Republican Congress last year abandoned the process of mandatory budget cuts or automatic sequestration that had been voted in a feeble attempt to rein in the dramatic rise in US government debt.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Peace Is a Cliché

Should “Jewish Heritage Month” be used as a cover for Israeli nationalism and to suppress Palestinian protest?

A recent incident at a Toronto high school demonstrates the depravity of the pro-Israel lobby. It also illustrates their use of Canadian cultural and “diversity” initiatives to promote a country that declares itself to be the exact opposite of diverse.

Amidst the recent slaughter of nonviolent protesters in Gaza, a half-century illegal occupation of the West Bank and weekly bombings in Syria, an Israeli flag marked with “Jewish Heritage Month” was hoisted in the main foyer of Forest Hill Collegiate Institute. After a couple of days the flag created by Israeli nationalist students was moved – possibly due to complaints from other students – to a less prominent location where Jewish Heritage Month events were taking place. In response B’nai Brith, Hasbara Fellowships, Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies and Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) all claimed persecution. “Discrimination has absolutely no place in our schools”, noted a CIJA spokesperson with regards to moving the Israeli flag to a less prominent location in the school. For their part, the Wiesenthal Center said our “objective is to ensure that TDSB [Toronto District School Board] adheres to its own values of equity and inclusivity for all students” while B’nai Brith’s press release decried the “Jewish students who have had their heritage denigrated.” That group then published a story titled “Forest Hill Collegiate Has History of Alienating Jewish Students, Former Pupil Says.”

After the uproar the flag was returned to the Forest Hill Collegiate Institute’s main foyer and the TDSB apologized. At an assembly to discuss the matter, in which the principal and TDSB representative spoke standing behind a podium adorned with an Israeli flag, a student apparently yelled “Free Palestine”. B’nai Brith immediately denounced the brave, internationalist-minded high schooler, tweeting:

“This morning, before an assembly about the removal of a #JewishHeritageMonth banner at Forest Hill Collegiate, a student yelled ‘Free Palestine’ during the morning announcements. We have been assured that this was not approved by the school and that an investigation is underway.”

In another Twitter post B’nai Brith claimed the Israeli flag flap made a “mockery of Canada’s first Jewish Heritage Month.” Their statement highlights a mindset that views gaining official sanction of cultural initiatives as a way to strengthen their campaign to support a violent, European colonial outpost in the Middle East.

Earlier this year the House of Commons unanimously adopted May as “Jewish Heritage Month”. The motion was sponsored by York Centre MP Michael Levitt who is chair of the Canada Israel Interparliamentary Group and a former board member of the explicitly racist Jewish National Fund. Two weeks ago the Liberal MP issued a statement, partly rebutting the prime minister, that blamed “Hamas incitement” for Israeli forces shooting thousands of peaceful protesters, including Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani.

The bill’s other sponsor was Linda Frum. Last year the Conservative Party senator called Iran “one of the most malign nations in the world” and labeled a Palestinian-Canadian’s 2014 art exhibit at Ottawa’s city hall “a taxpayer-funded tribute to a Palestinian terrorist” and “the murder of innocent civilians.”

Leaving aside the background of those driving the initiative, the likely political effect of creating Jewish Heritage Month should have been obvious. The Canadian Jewish News report on the House of Commons resolution noted that May was chosen to celebrate Jewish Heritage Month because of the “various events on the Jewish calendar, including the UJA Walk for Israel, the Toronto Jewish Film Festival, Jewish Music Week and Israel’s Independence Day.” Similarly, when Ontario adopted May as Jewish Heritage Month in 2012 United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto president Ted Sokolsky linked it to the group’s Israel campaigning. He said,

this announcement will call for an extra celebration at this year’s UJA Walk with Israel, which for 45 years has taken place in May.”

Despite the initiative being steeped in colonialist politics, the NDP voted in favour of the bill creating Jewish Heritage Month. During discussion of the motion NDP MPs Jenny Kwan and Randall Garrisson claimed it would enhance cultural/religious understanding. Garrisson said,

“Jewish heritage month will help contribute to better understanding of just how diverse we Canadians are, and in doing so contribute to building a Canada free from hatred and division.”

Of course, this would be a laudable goal, but putting up an Israeli flag in a public high school while that country is murdering unarmed Palestinian demonstrators can only cause hatred and division. And it is an affront to thousands of Jewish-Canadians who do not support Israel.

The flag flap at Forest Hill Collegiate illustrates how pro-Israel groups have weaponized Jewish cultural initiatives to amplify their anti-Palestinianism. Those who seek justice for Palestinians need to recognize this fact and figure out way.

*

Yves Engler is the author of A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Canada in Africa: 300 Years of Aid and Exploitation.

Venezuela has condemned the latest round of sanctions imposed by the Canadian government against several members of the Bolivarian government, calling them a “blatant violation of the most fundamental rules of International Law.”

A statement issued by the Venezuelan foreign ministry said that the “pro-imperialist behavior” of the Canadian government had pushed it to “attack Venezuela in many ways in the last weeks, showing off an evident and laughable superiority complex, in their continuous attempt to not acknowledge the democratic will of the Venezuelan people.”

“Venezuela energetically rejects the new attempt from the Government of Canada to impose unilateral coercive measures against Venezuelan citizens, in blatant violation of the most fundamental rules of the Public International Law,” reads the statement.

Venezuela says with the sanctions, Canada has continued “their foreign policy of humiliating subordination to the racist and supremacist administration of Donald Trump.”

“Facts suggest that this servile policy of the Canadian authorities is the result of that government’s urgency to avoid losing benefits and preferences in the trade agreements with the United States,” the statement added.

Canada announced Monday it would impose sanctions on 14 persons close to the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, including his wife and member of the National Constituent Assembly (ANC), Cilia Adela Flores, “in response to the illegitimate and anti-democratic presidential elections” carried out on May 20.

The extraordinary economic measures regulations “impose asset freezes and dealings prohibitions on listed persons by prohibiting persons in Canada and Canadians outside of Canada from dealing in any property of these individuals or providing financial or related services to them.”

Besides the first lady, the affected officials include Tania Valentina Diaz Gonzalez, Fidel Ernesto Vasquez Iriarte, Carolys Helena Perez Gonzalez, Erika Del Valle Farias Peña, Ramon Dario Vivas Velasco, Christian Tyrone Zerpa, Fanny Beatriz Marquez Cordero, Malaquias Gil Rodriguez, Indira Maira Alfonzo Izaguirre, Jhannett Maria Madriz Sotillo, Carlos Enrique Quintero Cuevas, Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes and Carlos Alberto Rotondaro Cova.

“These sanctions send a clear message that the Maduro regime’s anti-democratic behavior has consequences,” said Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. “Today’s announcement is evidence of our commitment to defending democracy and human rights around the world and our rejection of Venezuela’s fraudulent presidential elections. Canada is as determined as ever to support the people of Venezuela as they seek a more peaceful, democratic and prosperous future.”

The announcement was made a day after the Organization of American States (OAS) declared that the Venezuelan government had committed “crimes against humanity,” following the agenda led by the United States economic and political interest in the region.

Some factions of the Venezuelan opposition boycotted the recent presidential election stating that they didn’t consider them fair or transparent despite having reached an agreement with the Bolivarian government before suddenly rejecting it.

The European Parliament, the U.S., and the Lima Group, a group of right-wing governments with Latin America and the Caribbean, also announced sanctions following Venezuela’s elections.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Fundamental Human Rights, OAS Hypocrisy Exposed

This article was first published on GR in January 2015.

The Czech Republic’s President Milos Zeman said, in an interview, in the January 3rd edition of Prague’s daily newspaper Pravo, that Czechs who think of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych, on 22 February 2014, as having been like Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic “Velvet Revolution” are seeing it in a profoundly false light, because, (as Russian Television translated his statement into English) “Maidan was not a democratic revolution.” He said that this is the reason why Ukraine now is in a condition of “civil war,” in which the residents of the Donbass region in Ukraine’s southeast have broken away from the Ukrainian Government.

He furthermore said that, “Judging by some of the statements of Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I think that he is rather a prime minister of war because he does not want a peaceful solution, as recommended by the European Union (EU), but instead prefers to use force.”

He added, by way of contrast to Yatsenyuk, the possibility that Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko “might be a man of peace.” So: though Zeman held out no such hope regarding Yatsenyuk (who was Obama’s choice to lead Ukraine), he did for Poroshenko (who wasn’t Obama’s choice, but who became Ukraine’s President despite Obama’s having wanted Yatsenyuk’s sponsor, the hyper-aggressive Yulia Tymoshenko, to win the May 25thPresidential election, which was held only in Ukraine’s pro-coup northwest, but claimed to possess authority over the entire country).

What this statement from Zeman indicates is that the European Union is trying to deal with Poroshenko, as the “good cop” in a “good cop, bad cop” routine, with Yatsenyuk playing the bad cop; and, so, the EU’s policies regarding Ukraine will depend upon what comes forth from Poroshenko, not at all upon what comes from the more clearly pro-war, anti-peace, Yatsenyuk.

Furthermore, Zeman’s now publicly asserting that the overthrow of Yanukovych was a coup instead of having merely expressed the democratic intentions of most of the Maidan demonstrators, constitutes a sharp break away from U.S. President Barack Obama, who was behind that Ukrainian coup and who endorses its current leaders.

Zeman isn’t yet going as far as Hungary’s President Viktor Orban did in his siding with Russia’s President Putin against America’s President Obama, but Zeman is indicating that, unless Obama will get Poroshenko to separate himself more clearly from Yatsenyuk (whom the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland actually selected onFebruary 4th to become Ukraine’s Prime Minister in the coup just 18 days later, and so there can be no reasonable question that he is an Obama stooge), Czech policy regarding Ukraine will separate away from Obama’s war against Putin, and will join instead with Putin’s defense against Obama’s Ukrainian assault.

Zeman is thus now in very much the same position that Orban had been prior to Orban’s clear decision recently to side with Putin: each is a head-of-state of a former Soviet satellite nation, which had waged a democratic revolution (in 1956 in Hungary, and in 1968 in Czechoslovakia) against the Soviet communist tyranny. He is saying to his own countrymen, that the tyrant now is the United States, under its President Barack Obama, and is not Russia, under its President Vladimir Putin. That’s a seismic shift, away from the U.S., because of the Ukrainian coup.

Zeman was careful in his selection of which Czech news-medium would hold this interview with him. As wikipedia has noted, Pravo “is the only Czech national daily that is not owned by a foreign company.” The message that this fact sends to Czechs is that Zeman wanted to make clear that foreign influences, and any currying of favor with aristocrats (who own the ‘news’ media) in foreign countries, will not dictate his policies; only the Czech Republic’s own democratic values, and the behavior of Poroshenko, will. Zeman is indirectly telling Obama: Back off from me — you’re trying to get too close, and I won’t tolerate this. When Victoria Nuland said “F—k the EU,” she expressed Obama’s view, and all of them recognized the fact; some, like Orban and Zeman, don’t like to be treated this way; others, such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, seem not to mind.

It’s also interesting that the first two EU nations to indicate that they might leave the EU for an alliance with Russia are both former Soviet satellite countries that revolted against the Soviet dictatorship; both are Eastern European, not Western European. Perhaps these leaders are more loathe to be controlled by tyrants than are the ones for whom the very idea of being subordinate to a tyrant is just a mere abstraction. (Merkel, however, seems simply to love whatever is conservative, even if it might happen to be nazi, as in Ukraine.)

In any case, Ukraine’s coup has already produced one earthquake of historical magnitude, in Hungary, with Orban, and might soon do the same in the Czech Republic, with Zeman (which will depend upon Poroshenko reducing his war against Ukraine’s former east — which, in turn, will depend upon what instructions Obama provides to Poroshenko).

The European Union could actually be in the process of breaking up; and not only because of the Ukrainian civil war, but also because Obama’s forcing each and every one of the EU nations to choose up sides in Obama’s Ukrainian war against Putin will have very different economic effects upon the various individual EU member-nations, some of which will lose far more business with Russia, from adhering to Obama’s sanctions against Russia, than will others that go along with those sanctions.

U.S. President Obama is thus now pressing his pedal to the metal in order to achieve maximum destructive force against Russia, regardless of how many or what nations will follow him — perhaps even over the cliff, into a nuclear war. Obama is, in effect, now saying to each and every European head-of-state: Either you’re with us, or you’re against us. He’s George W. Bush II, only with regard to Russia, instead of to Iraq.

It’s “choosing up sides” time, yet again; and, this time, Obama and Putin are both waiting, no doubt each somewhat nervously, to see what his team will consist of, and what the opposing team will turn out to be.

However, there can be no reasonable doubt that Obama was the aggressor here. A coup followed by an ethnic cleansing is nazi, not at all democratic. That’s not opinion; it’s fact; and so it warrants to be noted in a news report, even though (if not especially because) others don’t report this fact, so that it’s still news, for long after it should have been reported as being “news.” Unfortunately, it remains as news, even today.

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.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on “Only Poorly Informed People” Don’t Know About Ukraine Coup

“Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine. Proponents claim that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system, claims which are demonstrably false…. Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and “innate intelligence” that reject science.” – Wikipedia

With tens of millions of Americans suffering from discomfort and chronic pain, particularly musculo-skeletal and lower back pain, it would seem reasonable to look for non-opiate therapies. One of the most popular websites to access quick information on health is Wikipedia. However, based upon Wikipedia editor’s entries on Chiropractic and other modalities of natural health, it would be reasonable for a person with chronic pain to continue searching for relief and/or continue relying upon non-steroidal anti-inflammatory or opiate drugs. We are now certain about the life-threatening risks of opiates. So at a time when more people are dying from legal opiate use than from gunshots and automobile accidents, any proven, non-invasive and non-pharmacological approach can be lifesaving. Therefore, the accuracy of Wikipedia’s editors needs to be seriously questioned as well as their motivations for posting gross unscientific misinformation. And this is why.

For over one-hundred years, conventional modern medicine has been antagonistic towards Chiropractic practice. We would have hoped that during that time that attitudes would have changed course and that chiropractors would finally receive recognition for the contribution they provide to the millions of patients receiving chiropractic treatment annually. Unfortunately, within the higher echelons of the medical establishment Chiropractic remains a target of ridicule. This pathos is most ardently expressed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and its internal divisions that support Chiropractic’s and alternative medicine’s enemies such as the network of Skeptic organizations and the followers of Science Based Medicine. And these prejudices are all parroted by Wikipedia.

Chiropractors have always faced fierce opposition by the conventional drug-based medical dynasty. Chiropractic’s founder, Daniel David (DD) Palmer was jailed in 1907, as were hundreds of other chiropractors during the practice’s early decades. Even in our own times, the AMA has labeled chiropractic as an “unscientific cult.”

Image result for daniel david dd palmer chiropractic

If one were to read the condemnations of DD Palmer, the impression would be given that spinal manipulation is a more recent form of therapy. However, Chiropractic’s origins predate the common era. Hippocrates in the third century BC wrote about treating scoliosis with a rather primitive spinal manipulation technique. In the 2nd century BC, the Roman surgeon Claudius Galen ‘s manuscripts included diagrams for properly manipulating the spine, and the great Muslim “doctor of doctors” Avicenna likewise recommended it for certain physical health conditions. Nor is treating musculoskeletal conditions manually limited to the West. The practice is found among the Balinese in Indonesia, Lomi-Lomi in Hawaii, and throughout the South Pacific islands. Captain Cook wrote in his diary of being treated through spinal manipulation by Tahitian healers. India, China and Japan, the shamans of Central Asia and the bone-setters of Nepal, Russia and Norway have manipulated the spine to eliminate pain and discomfort, malformations, relax muscles and treat maladies for centuries. In other words, the underlying principles of Chiropractic have been acknowledged and utilized as a viable therapy long before its founder.[1] [2]

Modern Chiropractic’s successful reputation and growth tell a different story at odds with Wikipedia’s fabrications. According to the American Chiropractic Association, there are over 77,000 chiropractic doctors practicing in the US today and 2,500 new graduates from the 20-plus leading chiropractic schools enter the workforce annual Carely.[3] The statistics for spinal manipulation therapy’s popularity speaks for itself and should alone quell doubts about chiropractic’s’ benefits. A joint Gallup-Palmer College poll in 2015 estimated that over 35 million people visit chiropractors.[4] The profession is a state-licensed healthcare discipline, with government accredited colleges, workers’ compensation insurance and coverage by Medicare and Medicaid. Each of the 32 teams in the National Football League employ chiropractors for players’ frequent back and neck problems as well as for overall conditioning.[5]

Chiropractors maintain that by manually manipulating the spinal column, they can relieve pressure on nerves, thus allowing the resumption of a normal flow of energy to the body or an afflicted organ. During the course of its development, chiropractors have systematized a regimen of hundreds of physical corrections which in turn provide relief for a host of ailments. The keyboard to the nervous system is the spine, which chiropractor Dr. Julius Dintenfass explained as “the most vital portion of the body… the axis formed by the brain, the spinal cord, and the vertebrae which support the body.”[6]

Important to note is that Chiropractic medicine has never regarded itself as a replacement for drug-based medicine. Dr. Dintenfass continues,

“Chiropractic does not treat the following conditions: cancer, coronary disease, diabetes, kidney disease, pneumonia. It doesn’t deal with any of the conditions that develop a state of pathology (structural and functional changes caused by disease) which might be irreversible…. we refer these cases to a physician.”[7]

Noted at the start of this article, Wikipedia states that Chiropractic’s premise that “disorders [that] affect general health via the nervous system” are “demonstrably false,” and that Chiropractic “ideas” are “pseudoscientific.”[8] And listed under “Spinal Manipulation,” Wikipedia reads “spinal manipulation was no more or less effective than other commonly used therapies such as pain medication, physical therapy, exercises, back school or the care given by a general practitioner. There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of spinal manipulations.”[9]

Much of Wikipedia’s erroneous claims are taken out of Skeptic textbooks, such as Eric Swanson‘s Skeptical Science and Society, a seriously flawed diatribe that regards anything outside of conventional medicine as quackery.[10] Swanson happens to be a professional physical astronomer, which evidently makes him a qualified expert among Skeptics to write about human biology and medicine.

The Skeptic community of Science-Based Medicine scientists promote the clinically unfounded belief that “in over a century, chiropractic research has produced no evidence to support the postulates of chiropractic theory and little evidence that chiropractic treatments provide objective benefits.” If we ignore the numerous clinical cases of millions of people successfully treated by spinal manipulation, Skeptics might have sound argument; otherwise, their claims are unfounded at best. Nor do they rule out that the millions of cases where patients found relief is simply a matter of the placebo effect.[11] Dr. Harriet Hall, a contributor to the SBM website categorically denies Chiropractic is a science and defines it as a “cult.” She refutes that it has any basis in neurology, anatomy and physiology. In fact, for Hall, it is a completely useless exercise:

“There is no published evidence to support that idea [that Chiropractic improves health]…. Despite enthusiastic claims, there is no evidence that preventative or maintenance adjustments do anyone any good.” She does acknowledge “spinal manipulation therapy is effective for some kinds of low back pain,” but claims “it is no more effective than other treatments”[12], ignoring large population studies showing the contrary.

If she had followed the court case indicting the AMA for conspiracy (discussed below), she would recognize the scientific facts are unquestionably in Chiropractic’s favor.

According to a 2017 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which was once Chiropractic’s most aggressive and formidable enemy and threat, spinal manipulation has been proven as the first line of treatment for acute back pain[13] and consumer surveys show chiropractic outperforms other back pain treatment modalities, including pharmaceutical drugs, massage, and yoga.[14] Back in 2007, 20 million adults and children saw a chiropractor within 12 months, hence there has been a substantial increase in chiropractic’s invaluable role in its therapeutic treatments.

One of the Skeptics’ pet arguments is that there is insufficient research in Chiropractic, particularly double-blind controlled studies, to warrant its legitimacy as a viable and vital form of medical intervention. This is an old argument the AMA has leveled against Chiropractic for decades. However, back in the 1970s when the AMA conducted a full frontal assault to eradicate Chiropractic, the US Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment released a report that only 10-20 percent of approved therapies in the medical establishment had been shown to be effective in controlled trials. Therefore, upwards to 90% of conventional medicine at that time was “unfounded.”[15] We might think that the pharmaceutical industry has improved upon its past dismal record; however, with conventional medical protocols, pharmaceutical drugs and physician error now the third leading cause of death in the US, it is too much hope for.

One obstacle carrying the strongest controversies, not only by the Skeptics and opponents of Chiropractic, but within the chiropractic community itself, is the validity of the “chiropractic” or “vertebral” subluxation complex. The theory is simply: nerve impingement from a subluxated vertebra can shut off the vital nerve energy flowing through the central spinal channel to the periphery.[16] It is not the case that vertebral subluxation is always visible in an x-ray. Wikipedia calls vertebral subluxation as having “no biomedical basis, lacks clinical meaningfulness, and is categorized as pseudoscientific.”[17] We are not arguing either for nor against the chiropractic’s theory of subluxation. However, in our opinion, the debate is still open. Repeatedly, science is discovering new findings that before were hidden, and therefore cryptic, denied or never considered. One obstacle Chiropractic has faced for decades was a workable definition for vertebral subluxation that could make the theory testable. That definition has only come into fruition recently through the Australian Spinal Research Foundation. In 2016, 59 leaders, researchers and academics within the Chiropractic profession from nine countries conducted a 9-month global consultation project to redefine the term. It has been the case within the Chiropractic community that past definitions for “vertebral subluxation” were insufficient. They still carried old baggage from the past and were not adequate for explaining the successes chiropractics have had, especially during recent decades.[18]

Although Chiropractic is attempting to address its perceived weaknesses, particularly in its definition of terms that correspond with our postmodern understanding of neurology and spinal physiology, it is still regarded as broadly nonsensical by the Skeptics.

The AMA–the largest and most powerful organization speaking on behalf of the medical industry, physicians and drug-based medical treatments–has largely continued to view Chiropractic with suspicion, as nonsensical quackery. In 1965, the AMA institutionalized the position that Chiropractic medicine was in violation of medical ethics and allopathic doctors should distance themselves from any association with chiropractors. Physicians who trespassed this boundary could even lose hospital privileges. If doctors referred a patient to a chiropractor it could result in the loss of their medical licenses and practice. One reason has been the incessant anti-chiropractic lobbying of the AMA, which perceived it as a threat to its repressive medical regime.

As we will see, the AMA is a thoroughly corrupt institution with a history of engaging in illegal activities. Its mission for the entire 20th century has been to establish absolute control over the dissemination of medical and health information in the US. The AMA has always held a phobia towards anything outside its purview. At one time even Sears’ catalog was targeted for persecution for having included alternative health remedies. In 1911, it published a text highly esteemed by Skeptics: the 500-page tome Nostrums and Quackery: Articles on the Nostrum of Evil and Quackery. This early 20th century text to help identify and root out medical heresies is what the Malleus Maleficarum, translated as the “hammer of witches,” was for 15th century Inquisition Church interrogators and torturers to diagnose and exterminate witches and sorcerers. Skeptics’ paranoia about alternative medicine today is little different than Pope Innocent VII’s mania about enchanters seducing the public and leading the population into sinfulness.

In 1986, the courts ruled that the AMA was implementing a conspiracy, a “systematic, long-term wrongdoing and long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession [eg. Chiropractic medicine].” It was discovered that both the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiology also participated in the AMA’s seditious plot. Later, the judge ruling the case commented that the AMA’s Committee on Quackery, founded in 1963 as a division of the AMA’s 1906 Department of Investigation, was solely focused on destroying the chiropractic profession.[19] In a 1971 Committee memo to the AMA’s board of trustees, it reads “your Committee has considered its prime mission to be first the containment of Chiropractic and ultimately the elimination of Chiropractic.”[20]

The legal case involved the filing of five chiropractors, led by Chicago chiropractor Dr. Chester Wilk, against the AMA and ten other medical organizations for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, with the intent to eliminate the chiropractic profession and establish a monopoly over everything that concerned the treating of disease and disorders. Among the plaintiff’s claims were that 1) the AMA held a mission to contain and eliminate Chiropractic, 2) the organization colluded with other medical organizations to boycott chiropractors thereby marginalizing them from the healthcare industry and patients, 3) collusion with other private groups to bar chiropractors from access to hospitals, medical facilities and universities, 4) the AMA cherry-picked government research to discredit Chiropractic, and 5) colluded and abetted with insurance companies to deny chiropractic coverage. After four years of collecting hundreds of thousands of documents, the trial began in late 1980.

Fortunately, the published science was on the chiropractors’ side. A California study of over 1,000 patient cases found that it took chiropractors half the time (15.6 days) to return the average injured work compared to the established medical profession, which took 32 days on average. Another study by the Oregon Workman’s Compensation Board found that chiropractic got twice as many injured workers back on the job within a week as medical doctors.[21]

After the court’s ruling, the presiding judge ordered, “a permanent injunction against the AMA, forcing them to print the court’s findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.” Other defendants settled out of court, paying the chiropractors’ legal fees and being forced to donate to Chiropractic non-profit homes for disabled children.”[22] The AMA’s subsequent attempts to overturn the decision in the US Courts of Appeals and the US Supreme Court failed. In fact, on four separate occasions Chiropractic has won legal battles against the AMA (1978, 1980, 1986 and 1990).

For the past 100 years, the AMA has had one single agenda: manipulate and brainwash the public to only place its trust in conventional licensed medical physicians.

During recent decades, the AMA increasingly functions as a private lobbying entity aligned with special private interests. It has returned to its origins as a bankers’ project for the Rockefellers and Wall Street. In 2017, the organization spent $21.5 million lobbying legislators and over $347 million since 1998.[23] Consequently, healthcare has taken a back seat to profiting the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, shareholders and party politics. Physicians increasingly view the AMA as an opponent to their professional careers. In the 1950s, 75% of physicians held membership in the organization. Today it is less than 25%. Only a small fraction continue to pay AMA dues.[24] Doctors are also dropping their association and membership because the institution is progressively kowtowing to political legislators’ demands by their constituents who fund their election campaigns. Nevertheless, the AMA claims it recognizes and supports over 190 medical organizations, mostly focused on specialized medical practices who do not endorse all of the AMA’s policies.

But the AMA has always been more about politics than health and medicine. It opposed the inclusion of health insurance in the 1935 Social Security Act and became President Truman’s arch enemy against his national health insurance plan in the 1940s. Later, it opposed the founding of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.[25]

With the arrival of Trump, the AMA faced a new scandal infuriating the medical community by endorsing Trump’s choice of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, who is determined to trash Obamacare. Dr. Christian Pean, a surgeon at New York University Hospital and earlier an honored recipient of the AMA’s leadership award stated that the organization’s allegiance to corporate interests over patient care “felt like a slap in the face and many physicians aren’t sure if the organization really stands for us any longer”[26] Over 5,500 physicians signed a petition accusing the AMA of disregarding patients’ needs.

Shortly after the creation of the Committee on Quackery, the AMA launched its Coordinating Conference on Health Information (CCHI), a secretive, covert organization that operated without institutional oversight or scrutiny, governmental or otherwise. The CCHI later gave birth to the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCHF), co-founded by Dr. Stephen Barrett, one of the saints of the Science-Based Medical community and one of Wikipedia’s favorite sources for demonizing alternative medicine and natural health practitioners. This was all within the scope of the AMA, although Barrett and his supporters unanimously deny any association between Barrett, his Quackwatch site and their activities.[27] However, the CCHI was a far larger surreptitious operation that included the Federal Trade Commission, FDA, the US Postal Service, American Pharmaceutical Association, the IRS, the Attorney General’s office, US Office of Consumer Affairs, and the Better Business Bureau. All were assigned the task to keep an eye and gather information about the practice and use of Chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy and naturopathy, vitamin therapies, non-conventional medical modalities, and books on alternative health released to the public and report back to the CCHI.[28] It is a well known fact that totalitarian, fascist and inquisitional institutions are obsessive about data collection as a suppressive weapon to target real and imagined threats. The AMA has also worked with the FDA and Pharmaceutical Advertising Council to feed false information to insurers such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Medicare, Aetna and others to black list doctors who may have provided patients with treatments outside the AMA’s approval.[29] The AMA had even reached its tentacles to strangle Bill Clinton’s failed Health Reform bill. Originally it had written into the bill penalties of up to $50,000 per offense to both doctors and patients who offered or took advantage of alternative medical treatments.[30]

Many books have been published exposing the AMA’s legacy of corruption and criminal activities, including some classics such as Dr. Robert Mendelsohn‘s Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Dr. James Carter’s Racketeering in Medicine, Joseph Lisa’s The Assault on Medical Freedom, and Joseph Beasley’s Betrayal of Health. Since then there has been a flurry of research, publications and books painting the conventional medical paradigm championed by the AMA as the nation’s number one enemy to health and well-being. According to Lisa, who gained access to the AMA’s Department of Investigation files at its headquarters in Chicago, the AMA has actively sought the creation of a “totalitarian medical pharmaceutical police state.”[31]

Between 1924-1949, the AMA’s leading publication was run by Morris Fishbein, an over-zealous propagandist who transformed the AMA from a toothless creature into a poisonous fanged beast of despotic bureacracy. While at the AMA’s journal he was Chiropractic’s most vicious opponent and credited with starting campaigns to suppress its practice, calling its doctors “rabid dogs” and “killers.” As early as 1938, he was indicted along with the AMA for Sherman Anti-Trust violations.[32]

But on the darker side, as a paid consultant for the Lorillard Tobacco company, Fishbein was instrumental in coaching the tobacco industry to conduct junk science in order to show cigarettes’ benefits and safety. As a racketeer, which he was later convicted of, Fishbein turned the AMA’s journal into a solicitor of “protection fees”for manufacturers to receive the AMA’s stamp of approval on products sold the public.[33] Yet there is a caveat to Fishbein, which puts him into a similar class with Quackwatch founder Stephen Barrett. Viewing themselves as exorcists to eradicate non-conventional practice, both men saw the medical world as a struggle between good medicine and evil cults practicing medicine without drugs. In 1927, Fishbein published his Encyclopedia of Cults and Quackery, his own version of the AMA’s earlier Nostrums and Quackery. According to Kenny Ausubel, author of When Healing Becomes a Crime, during court cross-examination under oath, Fishbein failed anatomy in medical school, never completed his internship, nor ever practiced medicine a single day in his life before taking the helm at the AMA’s journal. And yet Fishbein’s definition of a quack, noted by Ausubel, was “one who pretends to medical skill he does not possess.”[34]

Dr. James Carter, a professor at Tulane University’s School of Public Health and Tropical Diseases, has written that Stephen Barrett’s NCHF kept just enough of a distance from the AMA to give the perception of “lots of plausible deniability to the mother organization, the AMA, which gave birth to it.”[35] The sole purpose of these shadow factions, including the Skeptic movement, is to assure the AMA monopoly and dominance over medicine and healthcare and to slowly whittle down and extinguish competing systems of healthcare. Nothing more and nothing less. Although the NCHF is largely inactive today, its mantle, or at least the NCHF’s prime directive, has been take up by the cult of Science-Based Medicine.

Ultimately what is not being given proper attention is the human cost when patients are denied honest, accurate and objective information about natural, non-toxic medical modalities, such as Chiropractic, that can relieve pain. Therefore, why are the Skeptics and anonymous editors trolling Wikipedia permitted to decide what is legitimate medical science when by every normal standard and common sense they are sorely prejudiced and biased.

 

*

This article was originally published on Progressive Radio Network.

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

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

Notes

1  MCP Livingston. “The mystery and history of spinal manipulation.”  Can Fam Physician. 1981 Feb; 27(2): 300–302. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2538670/

2  E Pettman.  “A History of Manipulative Therapy”  J Man Manip Ther. 2007; 15(3): 165–174.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565620/

3  “Key Facts About the Chiropractic Profession” American Chiropratic Association.  https://www.acatoday.org/Patients/Why-Choose-Chiropractic/Key-Facts

4  Gallup-Palmer College of Chiropractic Annual Report: Americans’ Perceptions of Chiropractic. Gallup and Palmer College of Chiropractic. http://bit.ly/2jrr7TG

5  “Chiropractors are used by all 32 National Football League teams” The Good Body. https://www.thegoodbody.com/chiropractic-statistics-facts/

6  Gary Null. “Chiropractic Health Care Without Drugs.  Caveat Emptor. 

7  Ibid. 

8  Wikipedia. “Chiropractic,”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic

9  Wikipedia. “Spinal Manipulation,”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinalManipulation

10  Eric Swanon.  Science and Society: Understanding Scientific Methodology, Energy, Climate and Sustainability.   Spring: New York, 2016

11 “Overview of Chiropractic”  Science-Based Medicine. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/chiropractic/

12  Harriet Hall.  “Science and Chiropractic”  Science Based Medicine. March 11, 2008.  https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-and-chiropractic/

13  Paige, N. M., Miake-Lye, I. M., Booth, M. S., Beroes, J. M., Mardian, A. S., Dougherty, P., … Shekelle, P. G. (2017). Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA, 317(14), 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.3086

14  Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center. Back-Pain Treatments. ConsumerReports.org; July 2011.

15  Office of Technology Assessment. “Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies.” Publication No. 052003-00593-0. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1978

16  Frank Painter. “Review of the literature supporting a scientific basis for the chiropractic subluxation complex.” J. Manipulative Physiol Therapy. 1985 (Sep); 8(3): 163-174, http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Review_of_the_Literature.shtml

17  Wikipedia. “Vertebral Subluxation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_subluxation

18  “The Vertebral Subluxation: Conceptual Definition for Research and Practice.” Australian Spinal Research Foundation. 2017.  https://spinalresearch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-Vertebral-Subluxation.pdf

19  “US Judge Finds Medical Group Conspired Against Chiropractors”  New York Times. August 29, 1987. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/29/us/us-judge-finds-medical-group-conspired-against-chiropractors.html

20   “History of Quackery.”  Wellness Director of Minnesota. http://www.mnwelldir.org/printable/quackery.htm

21  Gary Null. “The War on Chiropractic”  Penthouse. October 1985. 

22  “American Medical Association” Open Secrets.  Center for Responsive Politics.  https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000068&year=2017

23  Ibid.

24  Judith Graham. “Like a slap int he face: dissent roils the AMA, the nation’s largest doctor’s group.  Stat News. December 22, 2016. https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/22/american-medical-association-divisions/

25  Ibid. 

26  Ibid.

27  JP Carter. “If EDTA chelation therapy is so good, why is it not more widely accepted.” Journal of Advancement of Medicine. Vol 2. 1/2, Spring/Summer 1989. pp 213-226

28  SourceWatch.org  “American Medical Association.”  https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Medical_Association

29  Ibid.

30  Townsend Letter for Doctors, November 1994.

31   Stephen Cooter. “Review of PJ Lisa’s Assault on Medical Freedom.” The Family News. Volume IV, No 1, pp 21-23

32  Wikipedia. “Morris Fishbein.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Fishbein

33   M Adams.  “What the American Medical Association hopes you never learn about its true history.”  Natural News. June 23, 2005.  https://www.naturalnews.com/008845_American_Medical_Association_the_AMA.html

34  K Ausubel.  When Healing Becomes a Crime. Healing Arts Press, 2000.  p. 117.

35    “History of Quackery.”  Wellness Director of Minnesota. http://www.mnwelldir.org/printable/quackery.htm

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Medical Despotism: The American Medical Association (AMA) Offensive Against Chiropractic
  • Tags: ,

Featured image: Kibera Slum in Nairobi with over 1 million inhabitants

The West likes to think of itself as a truly “peace-loving part of the world”. But is it? You hear it everywhere, from Europe to North America, then to Australia, and back to Europe: “Peace, peace, peace!”

It has become a cliché, a catchphrase, a recipe to get funding and sympathy and support. You say peace and you really cannot go wrong. It means that you are a compassionate and reasonable human being.

Every year, there are “peace conferences” taking place everywhere where peace is worshipped, and even demanded. I recently attended one, as a keynote speaker, on the west coast of Denmark.

If a heavy-duty war correspondent like myself attends them, he or she gets shocked. What is usually discussed are superficial, feel-good topics.

At best, ‘how bad capitalism is’, and how ‘everything is about oil’. Nothing about the genocidal culture of the West. Nothing about continuous, centuries-long plunders and benefits that virtually all Westerners have been getting from it.

At worst, it is all about how bad the world is – “all people are the same” cliché. And, also, there are increasingly, bizarre, uninformed outbursts against China and Russia which are often labeled by Western neo-cons as “threat” and “rival powers”.

Participants of these gatherings agree “Peace is Good”, and “War is Bad”. This is followed by standing ovations and patting each other on the back. Few heartfelt tears are dropped.

However, reasons behind these displays are rarely questioned. After all, who would be asking for war? Who’d crave for violence, terrible injuries and death? Who’d want to see leveled, charred cities and abandoned, crying infants? It all appears to be very simple, and very logical.

Image on the right: Peace? 3 years old Iraqi child with cancer, Mohammed in Kos Greece

But then, why do we not hear too often that “peace speech” pouring from the devastated and still de facto colonized African or the Middle Eastern countries? Aren’t they suffering the most? Shouldn’t they be dreaming about the peace? Or are all of us, perhaps, missing the main point?

My friend, a great Indian writer and thinker, Arundhati Roy wrote, in 2001, reacting to the Western “War on Terror”:

“When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said, “We’re a peaceful nation.” America’s favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: “We’re a peaceful people.” So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace.”

When it comes from the lips of the Westerners, is ‘peace’ really peace, is ‘war’ really a war?

Are people in that ‘free and democratic West’, still allowed to ask such questions? Or is the war and peace perception just a part of the dogma that is not allowed to be questioned and is ‘protected’ by both the Western culture and its laws?

I’m not in the West, and I don’t want to be. Therefore, I’m not sure what they are allowed to say or to question there. But we, those lucky people who are ‘outside’ and therefore not fully conditioned, controlled and indoctrinated, will definitely not stop asking these questions anytime soon; or to be precise, never!

*

Recently, through Whatsapp, I received a simple chain of messages from my East African friends and Comrades – mostly young left-wing, revolutionary opposition leaders, thinkers and activists:

“Free Africa is a socialist Africa! We are ready for war! The young Africans are on fire! Death to the imperialist forces! Viva Bolivarian revolution! South-South Cooperation! Today we take the battle to the streets! Africa Must Unite!”

Such statements would sound almost ‘violent’ and therefore could be even be classified as ‘illegal’, if pronounced openly in the West. Someone could end up in Guantanamo for this, or in a ‘secret CIA prison’. A few weeks ago, I directly addressed these young people – leaders of the left-wing East African opposition – at the Venezuelan Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Yes, they were boiling, they were outraged, determined and ready.

For those who are not too familiar with the continent, Kenya has been, for years and decades, an outpost of the British, US and even Israeli imperialism in East Africa. It was playing the same role that West Germany used to play during the Cold War – a window shopping paradise, stuffed with luxury goods and services. 

In the past, Kenya was supposed to dwarf the socialist experiment of Tanzania under the leadership of Nyerere.

Kibera Slum, Nairobi

Today, some 60 percent of Kenyans live in slums; some of the toughest in Africa. Some of these ‘settlements’, like Mathare and Kibera are housing at least one million people, in the most despicable, terrible conditions. Four years ago, when I was making my documentary film, in these slums, for South American network TeleSUR, I wrote:

“…Officially, there is peace in Kenya. For decades, Kenya functioned as a client state of the West, implementing a savage market regime, hosting foreign military bases. Billions of dollars were made here. But almost nowhere on earth is the misery more brutal than here.

Two years earlier, while filming my “Tumaini” near Kisumu city and the Uganda border, I saw entire hamlets standing empty like ghosts. The people had vanished, died – from AIDS and hunger. But it was still called peace.

Peace it was when the US military medics were operating under the open sky, on desperately poor and sick Haitians, in the notorious slum of Cité Soleil. I saw and photographed a woman, laid on a makeshift table, having her tumor removed using only local anesthetics. I asked the North American doctors, why is it like this? I knew there was a top-notch military facility two minutes away.

“This is as close as we get to real combat situation”, one doctor replied, frankly. “For us, this is great training.”

After the surgery was over, the woman got up, and supported by her frightened husband, walked away towards the bus stop.”

Yes, all this is, officially, peace.

*

In Beirut, Lebanon, I recently participated in discussion about “Ecology of War”, a scientific and philosophical concept created by several AUB Medical Center doctors from the Middle East. Doctor Ghassan ‘Gus’ Abu-Sitta, the head of the Plastic Surgery Department at the AUB Medical Center in Lebanon, explained:

“The misery is war. The destruction of the strong state leads to conflict. A great number of people on our Planet actually live in some conflict or war, without even realizing it: in slums, in refugee camps, in thoroughly collapsed states, or in refugee camps.”

During my work, in almost all devastated corners of the world, I saw much worse things than what I described above. Perhaps I saw too much – all that ‘peace’ which has been tearing limbs from the victims, all those burning huts and howling women, or children dying from diseases and hunger before they reach their teens.

I wrote about war and peace at length, in my 840-page book Exposing Lies Of The Empire”.

When you do what I do, you become like a doctor: you can only stand all those horrors and suffering, because you are here to help, to expose reality, and to shame the world. You have no right to decompose, to collapse, to fall and to cry.

But what you cannot stand is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is ‘bulletproof’. It cannot be illuminated by correct arguments, by logic and by examples. Hypocrisy in the West is often ignorant, but mostly it is just self-serving.

So, what is real peace for the people in Europe and North America? The answer is simple: It is a state of things in which as few Western people as possible are killed or injured. A state of things in which the flow of resources from the poor, plundered and colonized countries is pouring, uninterrupted, predominantly to Europe and North America.

Image below: Peru – Lima. Is it really peace?

The price for such peace? How many African, Latin American or Asian people die as a result of such arrangement of the world, is thoroughly irrelevant.

Peace is when the business interests of the West are not endangered, even if tens of millions of non-white human beings would vanish in the process.

Peace is when the West can, unopposed, control the world, politically, economically, ideologically and ‘culturally’.

“War” is when there is rebellion. War is when the people of plundered countries say “No!”. War is when they suddenly refuse to be raped, robbed, indoctrinated and murdered.

When such a scenario takes place the West’s immediate reaction ‘to restore peace’ is to overthrow the government in the country which is trying to take care of its people. To bomb schools and hospitals, to destroy supply of fresh water and electricity and to throw millions into total misery and agony.

As the West may soon do to North Korea (DPRK), to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran – some of the countries that are being, for now, ‘only’ tormented by sanctions and, foreign -sponsored, deadly “opposition”. In the Western lexicon, “peace” is synonymous to “submission”. To a total, unconditional submission. Anything else is war or could potentially lead to war.

For the oppressed, devastated countries, including those in Africa, to call for resistance, would be, at least in the Western lexicon, synonymous with the “call for violence”, therefore illegal. As ‘illegal’ as the calls were for resistance in the countries occupied by German Nazi forces during the WWII. It would be, therefore, logical to call the Western approach and state of mind, “fundamentalist”, and thoroughly aggressive.

*

This article was originally, in a slightly shorter version, published on RT.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace Is a Cliché: When the West Cannot Control the World Unopposed It Means War
  • Tags:

Some of the most prominent newspapers across the Western World spent much of the end of May editing or deleting humiliating headlines and articles falsely announcing the supposed death of Russian media figure Arkady Babchenko – who turned up very much alive and well shortly after the Ukrainian government claimed he was murdered by assassins.

The humiliation suffered across the Western media also stems from the fact that most articles also included preliminary accusations against Russia for the “murder” – a now familiar pattern of assigning immediate and baseless blame, evident after the 2014 downing of Malaysian airliner MH17 and the more recent Skripal affair.

Blame was not limited to the unprofessional and increasingly exposed Western media. The Ukrainian government itself would go as far as directly accusing Russia from the highest levels of political power in Kiev.

The BBC in its article, “Ukraine blames Russia for journalist murder,” would note that even Ukraine’s prime minster accused Russia of the supposed “murder,” stating (emphasis added):

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman has accused Russia of being behind the killing in Kiev of the Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko.

“I am confident that the Russian totalitarian machine did not forgive him his honesty and principled stance,” the prime minister posted on Facebook.

Yet shortly after the announcement of Babchenko’s death and as accusations began to mount against Russia – the Ukrainian government announced that his death was staged by Ukrainian security services.

Ukraine’s government now claims that the staged murder was in response to an allegedly “genuine” threat to Babchenko’s life.

The Guardian would elaborate in their article, “Arkady Babchenko reveals he faked his death to thwart Moscow plot,” claiming:

Details of the precise threat to Babchenko’s life were murky. Vasyl Hrytsak, the head of the SBU, said Russia’s spy agencies had contacted a middleman, identified only as G, and paid him $40,000 to arrange the murder. The middleman in turn approached a former Ukrainian volunteer soldier to carry out the hit, together with additional “terrorist acts”, he said.

The middleman was now in custody, Hrytsak said, showing video of a middle-aged, white-haired man being bundled by officers into a van. Hrytsak added that phone intercepts had revealed his contacts in Moscow. Dozens of contract killings had been averted, he suggested, claiming that the list of potential victims in Ukraine stretched to 30 names.

However, the Ukrainian government’s claims regarding the alleged threat to Babchenko’s life and the necessity of deceiving to the entire international community are of course predicated entirely on the credibility of Kiev – of which it now has none. 

Some Come Up for Air, Others Dive Deeper

Despite Kiev’s current crisis of credibility – many members of the Western media still busy editing and deleting humiliating jumps to conclusions – find themselves immediately and unquestioningly accepting the Ukrainian government’s explanation  – a government who just lied to them about Babchenko’s murder in the first place.

Like a deep sea diver whose air tanks have run out – some have sensibly rushed to the surface – denouncing Ukraine’s antics as deceitful, dangerous, and self-defeating. Others – however – are inexplicably diving deeper in the belief that an alternative source of air exists somewhere in the abyss of lies below now being constructed to defend Kiev’s actions and the Western media’s reaction to them.
One example comes from Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum in her article titled, “Ukraine’s government just faked a journalist’s death. Will it be worth the cost?” It claims:

Babchenko was not dead. His murder had been staged in order to catch a contract killer who had been paid $40,000 to assassinate him and who was planning to kill others. Babchenko walked into the room. People cheered. The security services gloated: They had, they said, used the fake murder to catch the middleman who paid the would-be assassin.

Plus, of course, they had finally made the Russians look stupid and themselves look smart. What “chaos”? Who’s a “failure” now? They had convinced the world that Babchenko was dead, pulled off a surprise, caught a criminal. Because the security services are under direct control of the Ukrainian president, they may well have helped him in his coming election campaign, and that may well have been part of the point.

Applebaum never fully explains how the Ukrainian operation made “Russians look stupid.”Over the years following a US-organized putsch to seize power in Kiev, Russia has consistently maintained that the Ukrainian government is deceitful, untrustworthy, and illegitimate in the way it seized and now maintains power in Ukraine.

The Babchenko hoax has proven Moscow right on all counts and then some – especially considering the added consequence of exposing the Western media’s contempt for facts and its collective rush to baseless, politically convenient conclusions.It is somewhat ironic that Applebaum also claims in her article that:

Until now, most Western governments have officially avoided the public trolling and open trickery that the Russians use on a regular basis. Instead of producing disinformation to counter disinformation, most mainstream Western journalists have doubled down on facts, believing that in an increasingly unstable world, they should stick as far as possible to the truth.

Yet the entire exercise Applebaum claimed on social media, “outplayed Putin at his own game,” proved definitively that Western “journalists” are entirely indifferent to facts. Even as it was revealed that the murder was staged and that Kiev was guilty of deceiving the international community – “journalists” like Applebaum continue to remain indifferent.

And as members of the Western media like Applebaum dive deeper in into the abyss of lies and the same pattern of unprofessional conduct that teed most of the Western media up for this unprecedented humiliation in the first place – this final point regarding the Western media’s lack of credibility is driven home even further.

What Was Kiev Thinking?

The full story regarding the Babchenko hoax is still unfolding. Had the hoax not been revealed, and Babchenko hidden away – it is likely the same scenarios that unfolded after the downing of MH17 and following the more recent Skripal affair would have been repeated once again.There would have been sustained accusations and condemnation of Russia – the implementation of further sanctions, the further justification of NATO expansion along Russia’s borders, and further pressure placed upon Russian positions in Syria.

The unraveling of the Babchenko hoax so far remains unexplained. Kiev’s explanation is both implausible and lacks any credibility considering Kiev just intentionally lied to the international community. Was it a botched, staged provocation? Or something else?

The United States and its NATO allies find themselves relying upon the lowest common denominator within any targeted nation. The US and NATO itself have suffered for years from a crisis of credibility. Those willing to work for a discredited and unsustainable geopolitical project like NATO would only do so because they lacked sound judgement and other human qualities associated with responsible leadership.

Many in the Western media reeling from Babchenko’s “return from the dead” have noted themselves that Kiev already suffers from a lack of public trust because of its serial incompetence, deceit, and corruption.

Anne Applebaum herself in her Washington Post article would note (emphasis added):

But the means — the fictitious death, the staged public reports — will reduce even further the already microscopically low levels of trust that Ukrainians have in their government and their media.

Kiev is just one of many unreliable allies scattered across the multiple conflicts and crises NATO presides over. Many of these allies have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an asset to NATO and its global agenda.Because of this, those faithfully working within the system NATO represents – like Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post – find themselves cleaning up after messes like the one recently made by Kiev.

Were the Babchenko hoax just a “sting operation” as Ukraine and many in the Western media are trying to claim it was, was it really necessary for the Ukrainian prime minister himself to comment on what he knew was a staged “murder,” and even accuse Russia at the cost of his credibility? This seems unlikely.

Did Kiev take it upon itself to unilaterally carry out their own rendition of the UK’s Skripal affair – with its NATO minders distrusting their ability to see it through and forcing them to humiliatingly end the operation by publicly announcing Babchenko’s murder as a hoax? This seems much more likely.

Time will answer these questions in full.

*

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