Global Research

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Germany is the EU’s economic engine, and it receives a lot of the resources that power its factories from Russia, thereby making their energy partnership a natural example of win-win cooperation and confirmation of basic economic theories of supply and demand. That said, it’s precisely because of the far-reaching political implications of this partnership that the US is so strongly opposed to it because it fears that Moscow might make Berlin more multipolar-oriented in the long term.

It would be counterproductive for Russia to “weaponize” energy exports like the US loves to fear monger about and somewhat successfully deceived Europe into believing was a cornerstone of the country’s policy after pro-American Ukraine’s mid-2000s gas disputes with Russia, but what’s really on Washington’s mind is that closer and more trusted relations between these two continental Great Powers would make it more difficult for America to dominate Germany’s foreign policy. Berlin’s subsequent “balancing” act between East and West would be detrimental to the US’ unipolar designs by its very being, ergo the provocative but entirely misleading hints about this being a “new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”.

This rhetoric is worded as it is mainly to appeal to the Polish audience, which has an inherent paranoia of both of its large neighbors for well-known historical reasons and is therefore trying to exploit the artificial controversy over Nord Stream II in order to replace Germany as the US’ main European partner. America’s interests in this happening are obvious because it intends to continue selling its more costly LNG to the continent through Poland’s Świnoujście terminal and other receptacles elsewhere, and the US also wants a more formidable presence in the “Three Seas” region right between Germany and Russia.

Nord Stream II is thus a double-edged sword for the US because it would cut into its profitable LNG business but would at the same time provide the strategic pretext for “legitimizing” its expanded presence in Poland and the Baltics. The US would correspondingly be able to drive a wedge between Russia and Germany through the Polish-led “Intermarium”, which is something that it’s wanted to do for a while now anyhow, without or without sanctions against their second underwater pipeline. This development, which is already in progress but would be greatly accelerated through Nord Stream II’s construction, is intended to obstruct a multidimensional Russian-German rapprochement but might in its own way give both Great Powers the motivation to take it even further.

*

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.

Any Canadian who still thinks that our Regime Change efforts against Syria are bringing democracy, freedom, or anything beneficial to Syrians or anyone else is certainly not trying to find the truth.

All Canadians who understand the truth about this Western-imposed catastrophe must do more to stop it. Our passivity is shameful.

Canadian politicians will not help us. In Canada, the Permanent state rules. Corporate predatory globalism with its Investor State Dispute Mechanisms and its hidden, anti-social, job-destroying agendas is the real Regime. Terrorist-supporting politicians are mere fronts, consent is fabricated by News Fabricator Monopolies which are part of the permanent government. Journalists have lost all credibility in matters of importance. Democracy died. The word itself has been weaponized to fabricate consent  for criminal wars and toxic corporate monopoly agendas. Monopolies include Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Media, Big Food/agribusiness, Military Industrial Complex, International Finance etc. We are basically a treatied sub-state, a vassal state.

Policies come first, and then propaganda is fixed around them. It happened during previous wars, and it is happening now.  

The regime change war against Syria and the propaganda wrapped around our government’s criminality is a case in point.  The War on Terror is simply a false front to disguise imperial conquest and our  longstanding support for proxy terrorists – the same ones that our government and its agencies publicly proclaim to be fighting. 

Testimonies from Syrians in liberated areas consistently contradict controlled media and government lies about the war. 

As decent citizens, all we can do is support the truth, amplify the truth, and denounce our governments’ imperial policies, all of which are wrapped in lies. 

Supporting one or another of the main political parties and engaging in identity politics will guarantee more of the same.  Anti-war/anti-Imperial protests, on the other hand, will legitimately address all “identity” issues under one banner.  

Protests should be grass roots and free from all corporate and “NGO” tentacles.  Otherwise they are invariably co-opted by their funders.  

As Prof Chossudovsky notes in “Rockefeller, Ford Foundations Behind World Social Forum (WSF). The Corporate Funding of Social Activism” for example,  

“… a Montreal WSF 2016 event on Syria refers to a country ‘in ruins as a result of a multifaceted  war between the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad and a host of opposition organizations,’ echoing almost verbatim the narrative of the mainstream media.  The central role of US-NATO in destroying Syria as a sovereign country is not mentioned.”

A World Social Forum that promotes criminal war propaganda and supreme international crimes is clearly an agency for the imperialists, and not for anything progressive or socially-oriented. It is an icon of the co-optation of the “Left” and “Progressives”.

Our governments and their agencies are responsible for these wars.  It is up to us, as decent citizens, to denounce them. 

*

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Notes

1. Global Research News. “Invasion of Iraq, The Secret Downing Street Memo: ‘Intelligence and Facts were being Fixed’. “   Global Research. 8 May, 2005 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/invasion-of-iraq-the-secret-downing-street-memo-intelligence-and-facts-were-fixed/5327841) Accessed 1 June, 2018.

 2. Mark Taliano and Carla Ortiz. “Video: The War on Terror is a Fraud. ‘Syrians Do Not Wish to Live Beneath the Tyranny of Western-supported Terrorists’ “ Global Research. 24 May 2018.( https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-terror-is-a-fraud-syrians-do-not-wish-to-live-beneath-the-tyranny-of-western-supported-terrorists/5641633) Accessed 1 June, 2018.

3. Michel Chossudovsky. “Rockefeller, Ford Foundations Behind World Social Forum (WSF). The Corporate Funding of Social Activism.” Global Research. 10 August, 2016. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-ford-foundations-behind-world-social-forum-wsf-the-corporate-funding-of-social-activism/5540552) Accessed 1 June, 2018.  

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

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

A recent article in the Toronto Star and its accompanying photo bear comment. The reaching hands are not of rioting, starving people grasping for food but of stockbrokers on the trading floor. The article, about protecting individual portfolios, counsels people to know of their options though “the majority of investors have little or no understanding of puts and calls and, in most cases, don’t want to be bothered.” A number of practices keep the public uninformed, including a plethora of neologisms that defy comprehension, lack of transparency, and skewed computations that omit life’s crucial externalities. Economics has been called the “dismal science,” but “abysmal” more fittingly describes its deadly impact on people worldwide.

The Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) is believed by many to represent the caring face of Canada, while it is lauded as the “New Masters of the Universe” and “Maple Revolutionaries” by the OECD, G20, and the World Bank.

“OECD analysts describe these Canadian funds as ‘pioneers in infrastructure investing’ that helped to establish infrastructure as an important and increasingly popular asset class.”¹

It is no exaggeration to state that the CPP is “banking on death,” the title of Robin Blackburn’s comprehensive history of pensions. The Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade lists CPP investments in seventy three corporations (and here) supporting Israel’s military/police/surveillance/prison industrial complex. The CPP is also a big investor in nuclear weapons and in Canada’s fossil fuel and mining sectors which are wreaking havoc in indigenous communities worldwide.

The Capitalist System

At its core is the pricing of human life in the capitalist system. George Monbiot succinctly explains it in his article about Britain’s chief economist Nicholas Stern’s influential report on climate change and the economy: Stern calculated that Heathrow airport expansion makes economic sense because it lessens the time that a rich person has to wait for a flight as his time is worth much money, so this wealth far outweighs the monetary loss if many impoverished people die due to aviation’s carbon emissions.

In 2016, private pension assets in OECD countries reached their highest-ever level at over $38-trillion (U.S.). Pension funds are part of a closed political economic system and its facilitating legalities. Representative are the links between the CPP, Imperial Oil, universities and think tanks, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) to “free, prior and informed consent.” While information is essential, particularly for indigenous people subject to land theft and to environmental contaminants, UN declarations are non-binding and unenforceable. Nonetheless, Anglo-Saxon democracies were the last to sign.

The importance of “informed consent” derives from the infamous longitudinal Tuskegee syphilis experiments on Black men who were not informed that they would not be treated for syphilis even though treatments were available. In practice, informed consent has been turned on its head as it is often configured to protect power.

Indigenous consent is obstructed by many loopholes: the state’s claim of eminent domain, the Doctrine of Discovery justifying European expropriation of supposedly “empty” land (terra nullius), a clause of Canada’s Delgamuukw ruling on Aboriginal title that allows the Canadian government to infringe on title under specific circumstances, the Carter doctrine asserting U.S. entitlement to Canadian resources for national security purposes, trade agreements that pre-empt national laws, the Canadian Mining Act which “does not require that the holder of an exploration permit inform property owners of its existence … and that the permit can be acquired via the Internet with a simple click [so] that First Nations, property owners, and municipalities are ever informed or forewarned of the acquisition of a land claim on their land or territory.”² The Canadian National Energy Board is made up of industry people whose consultations with Indigenous people and the general public are minimal.

CPP investments are also opaque. Private equities have privacy protections, ostensibly to protect trade secrets.

“The CPPIB’s (Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board) private equity team is a blessing to the oil patch. In addition to holding shares in Canada’s largest oil, gas, and coal companies, the most impressive CPPIB contribution to the sector comes from their private equity arm.”

The Canadian Pension Plan is a major investor in Imperial Oil, with its tar sands operations, pipelines, and refineries wreaking destruction on indigenous communities in Canada and abroad. An investigation into the Imperial Oil refinery adjacent to the Aamjiwnaang First Nations in Sarnia, Ontario, just published on May 5th, revealed that it emits ten times more fine particulate matter, seven times more carbon monoxide, and 49 times more sulphur dioxide than the nearby Detroit plant. Imperial Oil owns four facilities within 2 to 7 km from Aamjiwnaang. Forty per cent of Canada’s petrochemical industry surrounds this small community.

The water is so contaminated that it affects endocrine balance: two girls are born for every boy, and the effects on health have been substantiated by medical and legal reports and a charter challenge launched on behalf of the 800 member Aamjiwnaang community. In 2017 Imperial Oil’s flaring caused a five-hour massive explosion. Over 500 incident reports had been filed in 2014 and 2015 for spills and leaks in the Sarnia area: yet only one public warning had been issued through the municipality’s alert system. The government has still not installed an effective monitoring and warning system.

Critical Information is Withheld or Concealed

The Canadian government fired public health physician Dr. John O’Connor for informing the public of rare forms of cancer in Chippewa First Nations communities downstream from the tar sands, nor is it broadcast that preeminent climate scientist James Hansen states that tar sands development means “game over” for the planet. Pam Palmater, indigenous lawyer and Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University, writes of the latest pipeline expansions:

“Trudeau’s approval of the Kinder Morgan expansion is proof – once and for all – that even the most charming leader, with the biggest tears and sincerest sounding apologies, who is ‘absolutely’ committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples – can and will ignore those rights in the name of corporate interests every single time.”

Imperial Oil is 69.6% owned by Exxon-Mobil, the corporation associated with Rex Tillerson and with deception of the public about climate change. Oil was discovered in Ontario in 1858, a year before Titusville Pennsylvania, and by 1880 the Imperial Oil Company was producing, distributing, and refining oil. In the 1950s Imperial Oil and smaller companies banded together to lease some 2 million acres in the tar sands and by the early 1960s there were generous, publicly funded incentives and loose regulations to promote extraction. Imperial’s Board of Directors come from Exxon-Mobil, from the conservative C.D. Howe Institute, from executive positions at the major universities. In 1975, the chair of Imperial Oil led other CEOs to form the Business Council on National Issues, now the Canadian Council of Chief Executives with close ties to the Canadian and U.S. governments. In 2014 Exxon published a detailed report that brushed aside concerns about climate change, “saying oil and gas will remain the dominant sources of energy through 2040…”³

The former president and CEO of the CPPIB, Mark Wiseman, was also “bullish on the fossil fuel sector.” Wiseman recently left the CPP to join his wife at BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager. A Code Pink petition states that BlackRock is “making a killing on killing!” with its investments in Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grunman, Elbit, and General Dynamics – exactly the same investments as the CPP.

The current head of CPPIB is Heather Munroe-Blum. She is Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University and her directorships include the Association of American Universities, the Conference Board of Canada, Rio Tinto, CGI (oil and gas sector), the Royal Bank of Canada (mining). She is a vocal opponent of the academic boycott of Israeli universities. Her combined pension entitlements gave her the richest package of any university president in Canada at a time when Quebec universities were being asked to absorb $124-million in cuts.

Social Security

The main variables in providing social security have been whether to provide universal or selective coverage, to what degree it should be publicly funded, and the sources of funding. Traditional communities characteristically developed a range of ways to care for their members, whereas nation states came late, if at all, to take on social security, and originally only for selected groups like military men or senior state functionaries. “It was not until the epoch of the French Revolution and its Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen that the first proposals were heard for the paying of pensions as of right to all citizens who had reached an advanced age and were in want.” It was the “unlikely executor of the social legacy of French republicanism … Otto von Bismarck, who established the first universal pension system in 1889.”⁴ The modest 1935 U.S. Social Security Act provided a minimal benefit. Initially it did not cover non-waged women’s work or Black people. Its strengths were that it was a federal program, that it was comprehensive and not voluntary, and that it had its own autonomous administration.

Despite hopes that social security would be a stepping stone to a socialized society, insufficient benefits necessitated supplementary pensions. From the 1970s, pension fund managers took advantage of the erosion of New Deal protections and of the inflow of capital from abroad,⁵ and by the 1990s pension funds became a powerful driver of financialization. The trajectory has been from state responsibility for universal benefits at one end, to private pension funds based on individual contributions. In the cases of the Enron and Nortel Network bankruptcies, pensioners took huge losses as their plans were not guaranteed, and money from asset sales were prioritized for paying legal fees, creditors, and fund managers.

The erosion of state responsibility for social security was further exacerbated by the concerted assault on unions, a factor in the decline of cross-border class solidarity. The inclusion of union representatives on pension boards does not effectively change the “fund-first” principle of fiduciary duty that weights profit over social justice and the public interest.⁶ Not untypical is the case of American and Canadian pension fund investments in Chile’s privately owned water utilities despite a mass social movement within Chile to re-nationalize water.⁷

Currently, divestment victories are politically significant and a result of public pressure. Unlike corporate shareholders and coop members, contributors to pension plans do not have a vote. System change is urgent: fossil fuel impacts are already transforming ocean circulation, the jet stream, even the stratosphere, and are amplifying positive feedbacks. An adequate social security system at this calamitous time needs to go beyond monetary benefits, to go beyond mere reform, and ensure across national borders housing, food, and healthcare for all. It is intolerable that the knowledge- and morally- compromised few “bank on death” of the majority human population.

*

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.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history. It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy

The book can be ordered directly from Global Research. It is also available on Amazon

• 

  **Special Offer

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

  Michel Chossudovsky

  US$14.00  (list price US$22.95)

  Save 39%

Important article on the nature of the Trump Administration, first published by Global Research in August 2017

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood, … in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” Robert Paxton (1932- ), American historian, (in his book The Anatomy of Fascism, 2004)

“When and if fascism comes to America, it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, “Americanism.” Halford Edward Luccock (1885–1961), American Methodist minister and professor, (in Keeping Life out of Confusion, 1938)

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), German-born, Jewish-American political theorist, (in The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951)

By now, most observers have finally realized who President Donald Trump really is. After close to eight months in the White House, Trump has clearly demonstrated that he has serious character defects in his public role as an American “showman” president. His behavior, so far, has been more than bizarre. It has been clearly aberrant and frightening.

For example, people are accustomed to be lied to by politicians, but Donald Trump seems to have elevated the art of lying to new heights. He speaks and acts as if he were living in some sort of permanent fantasyland, and his first natural instinct is to invent lies. This goes hand in hand with another art that Trump has cultivated and developed to the utmost, and it is the art of bullying to get his way, with anybody, members of Congress, foreign leaders, even his own staff and subordinates, from whom he enjoys extracting public praise regarding his own persona.

What may be the most frightening realization of all, for an American president with such responsibilities, in charge of nuclear weapons, is the fact that Donald Trump seems to be a person who adopts the views of the last person he talks to, be it somebody from his immediate family who has been appointed to an official rank in his administration, or one of the generals whom he has appointed close to himself. — He seems not to have any firm political ideas of his own. — It all depends on if he is reading from a teleprompter or not.

On the last point, Trump may have reached a Summum of irresponsibility, for a democratic leader, when he transferred basic military policy on important foreign policy decisions to the military brass. I suspect that is a ploy to shed responsibility for future failures, for which he could conveniently blame the military.

This points to the fact that President Trump will be the puppet of his military junta in the coming months, as the besieged president retreats into his cocoon. He will be happy to let generals run the show in near complete secrecy, and with hardly any input from Congress, as the representatives of the people. The pretext this time around: “America’s enemies must never know our plans”, says Trump. Indeed, an empire cannot be democratic and open. It must be run in secrecy, with no, or hardly any, democratic debate.

As for now, the Pentagon has divided the world into six separate geographic so-called Unified Combatant Commands to oversee and impose by force a global “Pax Americana”. For instance, Canada is assigned to the USNORTHCOM, and countries such as Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and France are assigned to the USEUCOM, Japan and China are assigned to the USPACOM, as well as tiny Vanuatu, etc. According to Pew Research and government statistics, the U.S. still has 73,206 troops in Asia, 62,635 troops in Europe, and 25,124 troops in the Middle East and North Africa.

This is the basic infrastructure. Then, there are operational plans to use it.

Of course, such a global military development requires a lot of resources, which have to be diverted from other domestic uses. This creates the type of  “military-industrial complex”, which establishes a symbiosis between U.S. military industries and the Pentagon. That is precisely what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American people against, in his farewell speech of January 17, 1961.

The transformation has been long in the making. But with Trump as a would-be autocratic emperor, it is a fait accompli, notwithstanding what the U.S. Constitution says or calls for, in terms of checks and balances and the division of powers, and notwithstanding the basic wishes of the American people.

The conclusion is inescapable. Americans must recognize that the United States has become a de facto military empire, even if not yet a de jure empire, and Donald Trump is its current megalomaniac figurehead, a near neo-fascist would-be emperor. Where that will lead is anybody’s guess, but this is most unprecedented and most ominous.

Empires are very costly to maintain

However, as with any empire in quest of global hegemony, the ultimate danger is overextension. Military empires are very costly to maintain and they are subject to the law of diminishing returns, i.e. military investments result in lower and lower net economic returns, as negative reactions increase and the cost-benefit ratio rises. The collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991 can serve as a reminder of such a scenario. Sooner or later, indeed, the same cause and effect equation is bound to confront the current neocon-inspired American adventure as a world empire.

Considering the above, it is not surprising that little leeway is left in the U.S. fiscal budget for social programs on the domestic front. In the short run, this may hardly matter, since Donald Trump does not seem to be talking to anybody in Congress, after having insulted most of its leaders and having created a vacuum around himself and his office. In the long run, however, this could be a harbinger of social troubles ahead.

Currently, Donald Trump is bound to accomplish very little as far as domestic policies are concerned. Trying to bully the Senate with ludicrous threats to shut down the U.S. government if the former does not vote his way in appropriating $1.6 billion in border wall money, may insulate Trump even more, even if such irresponsible talk pleases his electoral base. Indeed, if the President were to carry out his threat of “closing down our government” by vetoing any spending bill that does not include funding for his pet project of building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, this would represent some dangerous brinkmanship rarely seen in politics.

Also, with the ominous threat of a possibly devastating report from U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller, sometime late in the fall or in early 2018, a president-under-siege’s main political way out may be to coach his generals into launching or expanding overseas wars. Indeed, this could be in the Middle East and/or in Asia, or even against Venezuela — it doesn’t much matter — while hoping that his unsophisticated political base, establishment journalists and the U.S. media in general will appreciate the show, and that the public’s attention can be somewhat diverted from his ineptitude.

Conclusion

All this is to say that with Donald Trump in the White House, the United States is marching more or less blindly toward a series of major crises, politically, economically and militarily. Which one will come first and how serious it will be is hard to predict. In any case, you can expect that it will be most disruptive.

Economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, and of “The New American Empire”.

This article was first published on the The New American Empire Blog

Featured image is from the author.

First published by Global Research in November 2009

An analysis of the dynamics of capitalist development over the last two decades has been overshadowed by an all too prevalent “globalization” discourse. It appears that much of the Left has bought into this discourse, tacitly accepting globalization as an irresistible fact and that in many ways it is progressive, needing only for the corporate agenda to be derailed and an abandonment of neoliberalism.

This is certainly the case in Latin America where the Left has focused its concern almost exclusively on the bankruptcy of “neoliberalism”, with reference to the agenda pursued and package of policy reforms implemented by virtually every government in the region by the dint of ideology if not the demands of the global capital or political opportunism. In this concern, imperialism and capitalism per se, as opposed to neoliberalism, have been pushed off the agenda, and as a result, excepting Chavéz’s Bolivarian Revolution, the project of building socialism has virtually disappeared as an object of theory and practice.

In this paper we would like to contribute towards turning this around—to resurrect the socialist project; to do so by deconstructing the discourse on “neoliberal globalization” and reconstructing the actual contemporary dynamics of capitalist development.

This is a major task requiring a closer look at the issues. The modest contribution of this paper is to bring into focus the imperialist dynamics of capitalist development in Latin America. To this end, we present an analytical framework for an analysis of the dynamics of capitalist development and imperialism. We then summarize these dynamics in the Latin American context. Our argument is that the dynamics of capitalist development and imperialism have both an objective-structural and a subjective-political dimension and that a class analysis of these dynamics should include both. This means that it is not enough to establish the workings of capitalism and imperialism in terms of their objectively given conditions that affect people and countries according to their class location in this system. We need to establish the political dynamics of popular and working class responses to these conditions—to neoliberal policies of structural adjustment to the purported requirements of the new world order.  The politics of the Left might so be better informed.

The Neoliberal Era of Capitalist Development and Imperialism

Capitalist development in Latin America can be periodized as follows: (1) an initial phase of primitive accumulation and national development dating more or less from the Independence Movement in the 1860s and crystallizing in the Porfiriato, an extended dictatorship of the big landowners and incipient bourgeoisie in Mexico; (2) a period of modernization, incipient industrialization (in the form of “Fordism”) and social reform, dating from the Mexican Revolution in the second decade of the twentieth century; (3) a period of state-led capitalist development with “international cooperation” (technical and financial assistance) dating from the end of the Second World War and the construction of the Bretton Woods world order (1945-70); (4) a period of transition (1971-82) characterized by an extended crisis in the global system of capitalist production and diverse efforts to restructure the system; and (iv) the construction of a new world order designed so as to free the “forces of freedom” from the constraints on capital accumulation imposed by the system of sovereign nation states. This phase, which can be dated from the onset of a region-wide debt and an ensuing “development” crisis, is characterized by dynamic processes of neoliberal globalization and imperialism – the institution of a neoliberal policy framework (the structural adjustment program, as it was termed at the time), a renewed imperial offensive, and the decline but then partial recovery of the capital accumulation process and the self-styled “forces of economic and political freedom”.

The latest period of capitalist development has two dimensions (globalization in theory / imperialism in practice, forces of opposition and resistance), both of which can also be broken down into four phases.

Neoliberalism and Imperialism in Practice: A Framework of Analysis

Phase I (1975-82) of the neoliberal project is associated with the bloody Pinochet regime in Chile constituted with a military coup in 1973. The “bold reforms” implemented by this regime and extended into Argentina and Uruguay were subsequently implemented by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and used by economists at the World Bank as a model for the structural reforms set as the price of admission into the new (neoliberal) world order.

Phase II (1983-90) of neoliberalism (imperialism masked as globalization) includes the foundation stones of renewed process of capital accumulation on a global scale; setting the parameters for a new configuration of economic and political power; implementation of a second round of neoliberal “structural reform”; launch of an ideology (globalization) designed to legitimate this reform process, and the first wave of privatizations as part of this reform process; and a process of redemocratization designed as a means of securing the political conditions of structural adjustment—a marriage of strategic convenience between capitalism /economic liberalism and democracy / political liberalism (Dominguez and Lowenthal, 1996).

Phase III (1990-2000) entails what might be viewed as a “golden age” of massive transfers of public property to the “private sector” (capitalists and their enterprises); an enormous net outflow of capital (“international resource transfers”) in the form of profits on investments, debt payments and royalty charges; virtually no economic growth—less than one percent per capita over the decade and a growing divide in the distribution of society’s wealth and income; huge bailouts of the banks and investors in corporate stock in a situation of financial crisis; and another round of neoliberal policy reform (“structural reform”), this time with a “human face” (adding to the reform process a “new social policy” targeted at the poor,); a second wave of privatizations and an associated denationalization of the banks and strategic economic enterprises; and a post-Washingron Consensus on the need for a more inclusive form of neoliberalism designed to empower the poor (Craig and Porter, 2006; Ocampo, 1998; Van Waeyenberge, 2006).

Phase IV (2000-09) begins with an involution in the system of capitalist production and the collapse of foreign direct investment inflows; and the onset of political crisis viz. widespread disenchantment with neoliberalism, and a process of regime change (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela—a coup against and the restoration of Chávez to power—and Uruguay. In 2003, the production crisis gives way to a mild economic recovery for a number of countries in the region and a sweeping realignment of political forces into four blocs. The basis of this process of economic and political development is a realignment of global production—a primary commodities boom fueled by the growing demand in China and India for new sources of energy, natural resource industrial inputs and consumption goods for a rapidly growing middle class.

Opposition to Imperialism, Class Rule and Neoliberalism: Forces of Resistance

Phase 1 (1973-82) of the anti-neoliberal project includes a major counter-offensive of the landed proprietors and big capital against the incremental advance of the workers and peasants; a double-offensive of the state against the rural poor and landless peasants in the form of the “Alliance for Progress” (“rural development”) and use of the state’s repressive apparatus against the guerrilla armies of national liberation; the counter-offensive of capital, with the support of the state, against the working class, resulting in a disarticulation of the labor movement, cooptation of its leadership and a weakening in its capacity to negotiate for higher wages and better working conditions; and, with the agency and support of U.S. imperialism, the institution of military coups and the institution of military rule and a war against “subversives” under the aegis of a Washington-designed “Doctrine of National Security”.

Phase II (1983-99) was characterized by a reorganization of the popular movement, particularly in the countryside—in the indigenous communities and among the masses of dispossessed, landless workers and peasant producers; the mobilization of the forces of popular opposition and resistance against the neoliberal policies of the governments of the day; various uprisings of indigenous peasants in Ecuador, Chiapas and Bolivia, resulting in the ouster of several presidents if not regime change, and in the blocking of governments efforts to extend the neoliberal agenda; the division of the indigenous movement (in Bolivia and Ecuador) into a social and political movement, allowing it to contest elections as well as mobilize the forces of resistance in direct action against the state; a general advance in the popular movement with the growth of new offensive and defensive class struggles.

Phase III (2000-03), corresponding to a crisis in production and ideology vis-à-vis neoliberalism, was characterized by the emergence of various offensive struggles and social mobilizations that led to the overthrow of regimes in Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador. In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez came to power, inciting the complex dynamics of a class struggle characterized by a series of counter-offensives by the ruling class (attempted coups, referendums), growing demands for radical reforms and the institution of the “Bolivarian Revolution” based on an anti-imperialist strategy designed to take the country along a socialist path.

As for Phase IV (2003-09) it saw the rise of a bloc of pragmatic neoliberal, quasi-populist democratic socialist regimes oriented towards the post-Washington Consensus, an ebb in the flow of the popular movements, the radicalization of Chávez’s project of “21st Century Socialism” and the reflux of the popular movement.

Four Cycles of Neoliberalism

“Neoliberalism” in this historic context denotes a national policy—or rather, reform of the then-existing policy of state-led development (“structural reform” or “structural adjustment”)—justified with a neoclassical theory of economic growth and development and an ideology of globalization. In this context, we can identify four cycles of neoliberal “structural reform”. The first cycle, initiated by the Chicago Boys in Chile under Pinochet . After this first round of neoliberal experiments in policy reform, extended to Argentina and Uruguay, crashed in the early 1980s, a second round of neoliberal policy reforms was implemented under conditions of redemocratization, an external debt crisis and the political leverage that this crisis provided the World Bank and the IMF, the agencies that assumed primary responsibility for implementing the Washington Consensus on needed policy reform.

The third cycle of neoliberal policies was implemented in the 1990s. At the outset only four major regimes had failed to fully embrace the “discipline” of structural adjustment. But serious concerns had surfaced as to the sustainability of the neoliberal model and the associated Washington Consensus. For one thing, neoliberalism had utterly failed to deliver on the promise of economic prosperity and mutual benefits to countries north and south of the global development divide. For another, structural reforms had not only released the “forces of freedom” but also forces of resistance that threatened the survival not only the viability of the neoliberal model but the survival of the state itself. To avert an impending crisis the ideologues of globalization and neoliberal architects of policy reform came up with a revised model: structural adjustment with a human face (UNICEF, 1989) in one formulation, productive transformation with equity (ECLAC, 1990) in another, and “sustainable human development” (UNDP, 1996) in yet another. The common feature of these and other such models was a continuing commitment to a neoliberal program of “structural reform” at the level of national policy, the design and adoption of a “new social policy” that “targeted” social investment funds at the poor and their communities, and specific policies that helped shelter the most vulnerable groups from the admittedly high “transitional” social costs of structural adjustment. [1]

Policy Dynamics of Neoliberal Structural Reform

The discourse on “globalization” emerged in the 1980s in the context of efforts in policymaking circles to renovate the ailing Bretton Woods world order—to create a “new world order”.  Under widespread systemic conditions of a capitalist production crisis and an associated fiscal crisis, economists at the World Bank and its sister “international financial institutions”, all adjuncts of the U.S. imperial state, formulated a program of policy reforms designed to open up the economies of the developing world to the forces of “economic freedom”, to integrate these societies and economies into the new world order. These policy reforms included various IMF stabilization measures such as currency devaluation and import restrictions, and policies of structural adjustment: (1) privatization of the means of social production and associated economic enterprises (reverting thereby the nationalization policies of the earlier model of state-led development); (2) deregulation of diverse product, capital and labor markets; (3) liberalization of capital flows and trade in products and services; and (4) and administrative decentralization, attempting to “democratize” thereby the relation of civil society to the state, transferring to local governments in partnership with civil society responsibility for economic and social development; that is, privatizing “development”  (allowing the poor to “own” and be responsible for improving their lives, changing themselves rather than the system.

By the end of the 1980s, this package of policy reforms had transformed the economic and social system of many Latin American societies. The state-led reforms of the 1960s and 1970s (nationalization, regulation of capitalist enterprise and capital inflows, protection of domestic producers, rural credit schemes, land and income redistribution market-generated incomes, etc.) had been reverted, effectively halting, where not reversing, the process of development and incremental change.

The outcome and social impacts of this social transformation were all too visible and apparent, especially to those groups and classes that bore the brunt of the adjustment and globalization process. With a significant reduction in the share of labor (and households) in society’s wealth and national income, and an equally significant concentration of asset-based incomes and its conversion into capital, Latin American society became increasingly class divided and polarized between a small minority of individuals capacitated and able to appropriate the lion’s share of the new wealth and a large mass of producers and workers who had to bear the costs of this “structural adjustment” and excluded from its benefits. The economic and political landscape of Latin American society was, and is, littered with the detritus of this development process. The objectively given conditions of this process are not only reflected in the all too evident deterioration in living and working conditions of the mass of the urban and rural population. They are also reflected in the evidence of a process of massive outmigration, the export of labor as it were, and an equally massive process of capital export—a net outflow or transfer of “financial resources” estimated by Saxe-Fernandez and Núñez  (2001) to amount to over USD 100 million for the entire decade of the 1990s. Recent studies suggest that if anything the process, fuelled by the financialization of development and policies of privatization, liberalization and deregulation, has continued to accelerate, putting an end to any talk, and much writing, about a purported “economic recovery” based on a program of “bold reforms” and “sound economics.”  Neoliberalism is in decline if not dead.

Globalization or Global Class War?

It is commonplace among many intellectuals, pundits and policy makers both in Latin America as elsewhere to discuss “globalization” as of it were a process unfolding with an air of inevitability, the result of forces beyond anyone’s control—at worst allowing policymakers to manage the process and at best to push it in a more ethical direction; that is, allow the presumed benefits of globalization to be spread somewhat more equitably. This is, in fact, the project shared by the antiglobalization movement in their search for “another world” and the pragmatic centre-left politicians currently in power in their search for “another development”.

In this discourse, globalization appears as a behemoth whose appetites must be satisfied and whose thirst must be quenched at all costs—costs borne, as it happens but not fortuitously, by the working class. In this context to write, as do so many on the Left today, of the “corporate agenda” and “national interests”, etc. is to obfuscate the class realities of globalization—the existence and machinations of the global ruling class (Petras, 2007) and what Jeffrey Faux (2006) terms a “global class war”.

Faux’s book allows us to view in a different way the globalizing economy, the politics and economics of free trade, and soaring corporate profits on the one hand, and, on the other hand, deteriorating standards of living and the continuing (and deepening) poverty of most of the world’s people. What is behind this reality? A dynamic objective process, working like the invisible hand of providence through the free market to bring about mutual benefits and general prosperity? Or a class of people who in their collective interest have launched a global war with diverse features and theaters. One feature of this class war, one of many (on its manifestation in the European theater, see Davis, 1984; and Crouch and Pizzorno, 1978) entails ripping up the social contract that had allowed the benefits of capitalism to be broadly shared with other social classes. Another feature was the use of the state apparatus to reduce the share of labor in national income waken its organizational and negotiating capacity, and repress any movement for substantive social change.

The globalization discourse hides the class realities behind it. The press, for example, consistently talks about national interests without defining whom exactly is getting what and how, under what policy or decision-making conditions. Thus, American workers are told that the Chinese are taking their jobs. But the China threat, in fact, is but another global business partnership, in this case between Chinese commissars who supply global capital cheap labor and the U.S. and other foreign capitalists who supply the technology and much of the capital used to finance China’s exports. Workers in Latin America are told that it is their inflexibility and intransigence, and government interference in the free market, that hold them back from engaging meaningfully or at all in the many benefits of globalization. Many, including on the Left, view “globalization” in this way. However, it would be better to see it for what it is: a class project vis-à-vis the accumulation of capital on a global scale; and as “imperialism” vis-à-vis the project of world domination, a source and means of ideological hegemony over the system.

Neoliberalism is the reigning ideology of the global elite, a transnational capitalist class that holds its annual meeting in the plush mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland. Hosted by the multinational corporations that dominate the world economy (Citigroup, Siemens, Microsoft, Nestlé, Shell, Chevron, BP Amoco, Repsol-YPF, Texaco, Occidental, Halliburton, etc.), some 2000 CEOs, prominent politicians (including former and the current presidents of Mexico), this and other such meetings allow this elite to network with pundits and international bureaucrats, discuss policy briefs and position papers on the state of the global economy, and to strategize abut the world’s future – all over the best food, fine wine, good skiing and cozy evenings by the fire among friends and associates – fellow self-appointed and nominated members and guardians of the imperial world order.

Davos is not a secret cabal, although it is surrounded by meetings and workings of a host of groupings, meetings and committees and extended networks that is. Journalists issue daily reports to the world on the wit and informal charm of these unelected, self-appointed or nominated members of the class that runs and manages the global economy.  In this sense it is a political convention of what Fauz dubs “the Davos Party” that includes solid representation from the economic and political elite in Latin America. The mechanism and dynamics of class membership are unclear; as far as we know it has not been systemically studied. But it likely involves “people” like Henrique Fernando Cardoso, former dependency theorist and later neoliberal president of Brazil, upon or before completion of his term in office, being invited to give a “talk” or address members of the imperial brain trust, the global elite, at one of its diverse foundations and  “policy forums”, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a critical linchpin of the imperial brain trust and its system of thinktanks, policy forums and geopolitical planning centers. Certainly this is how former Mexican presidents Carlos Salinas and Ernesto Zedillo were appointed and assigned specific responsibilities on diverse working “committees” designed to identify and redress fissures in and threats to the system. It is evident that listing in Forbes’ listing of the world’s biggest billionaire family fortunes, such as Bill Gates, George Soros and Carlos Slim, is sufficient in itself to ensure automatic membership in the club.

The New World Order system easily identifies those members of the global elite in each country that, as Salbuchi (2000) notes, are “malleable, controllable and willing to subordinate themselves to the system’s objectives”.  Their careers are then launched so that they may rise to become presidents of their countries or ministers of finance and central bank governors.  This was the case, for example, for Argentina’s Domingo Cavallo, Chile’s Alejandro Foxley and Brazil’s Henrique Cardoso, each of whom received suitable local and international press coverage; were honored with “prestige-generating” reviews, interviews, conferences and dinners, etc.; and then invited to address the Council on Foreign Relations, the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, so that the key New World Order players in New York and Washington could evaluate them. If and when they pass muster their election campaigns are generously financed by the corporate, banking and media infrastructure of the “establishment” that has the resources and means to bring them to power legally and democratically—to do the bidding of their masters and colleagues. [2] Some are even invited to join elite circles and organizations such as Trilateral Commission and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), or one of the CRC’s working committees.

The Left Responds to the Crisis of Neoliberalism

Throughout the 1990s the dominant popular response to neoliberal globalization and associated regimes and policies was in the form of social movements that represented and advanced most effectively the struggle against what Ron Chilcote (1990) called a “plurality of resistances to inequality and oppression”. These movements placed growing pressure from below on the regime and the “political class”. However, by mid-decade, well into the left’s general retreat from class politics, a number of these movements followed Brazil’s labor movement (The PT or Workers’ party) in establishing a party apparatus to allow them to contest both national and local elections—to pursue an electoral strategy. This political development did not require or mean an abandonment of the social movement strategy of social mobilizations, etc. but it did open up a broader opportunity to participate in the electoral process, allowing the populace to participate in party politics.

Local Politics and Community Development

The mobilization of the electorate via the institutional trappings of liberal democracy provided a new impetus to the political left—the segment that opted for party politics over social mobilization as a strategy for achieving state power: influencing government policy from within rather than outside the system. However, a large swath of the Left seem to have heeded Jorge Casteñeda’s call for the Left to switch its electoral ambitions to the municipality, local politics and community development. His argument, advanced in Utopia Unarmed, was that “municipal politics should be the centre-piece of the left’s democratic agenda… because it typifies the kind of change that is viable… a stepping stone for the future” (1994: 244). Engagement in local politics, he argued –and much of the left seemed to have followed this line—would provide the basis for a consolidation of the Left after the so-called “democratic transition” from 1979 (Bolivia, Ecuador) to 1989 (Chile). In addition it would help re-articulate the civil society-local state nexus and restore legitimacy to the Left’s relationship with the popular sector (Lievesley, 2005: 8).

An example of the approach proposed by Casteñeda, and in fact widely pursued by the Left even before his book (the World Bank’s strategy in this regard was already quite advanced) had already is the PT’s experience with municipal government in Porto Alegre, the capital city of Brazil’s state of Rio Grande do Sul (1989-2004). The PT administration opened up municipal institutions with a stated commitment to accountability and transparency, as well as citizen participation in the budget planning process via the mechanism of public meetings (Orçamento Participativa).

The Porto Alegre experience with participatory budgeting was hailed by the World Bank and the International Development “community” of multilateral institutions and liberal academics as a good example of collective decision-making for the common good, a model of grassroots participatory development and politics, and it continues to serve as a guide to similar practices and experiences elsewhere (Abers, 1997). Other examples of this “participatory” approach towards local politics and community development, widely adopted by the Left in the 1990s in its retreat from class, can be found in Bolivia and Ecuador, both countries a laboratory for diverse experiments to convert the municipality into a “productive agent” (the “productive municipality”)[3] and exertions by the Left to bring about social change via local politics (North and Cameron, 2003). On the left this shift from macro-politics and development (national elections versus social movements) to micro-politics and development (local politics, participatory development) was viewed as a salutary retreat from a form of analysis and politics whose time had come and gone. Within academe the dynamics of this process has been viewed in some circles as the harbinger of a “new tyranny” (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).

The World Social Forum Process: Is Another World Possible?

On January 3, 2007, Caracas, the capital city of an epicenter of social and political transformation in the region was concerted into the Mecca of the international left. Thousands of activists (100, 00 according to the organizers) arrived in Caracas from some 170 countries to participate in the sixth edition of the World Social Forum (WSF), a process initiated in Porto Alegre, Brazil, six years earlier.  It was the first of a then thereafter annual event, extended to and replicated in other regional settings from India, Europe and most recently Nairobi, Kenya in the African subcontinent. In each place and in each annual event, the organizers would bring together hundreds of nongovernmental and civil organizations committed to the search for a more ethical form of globalization, a more human form of capitalism. The process brings together diverse representatives of a self-defined new left committed to the belief in the necessity and possibility of a “new world”, an alternative to globalization in its neoliberal form.

There are, of course, defined limits to this new political process: participants are invited and expected to explore diverse proposals for bringing about “another world” but to limit this search to reforms to the existing system, reforms that no matter how “radical” are expected to leave the pillars of the system intact. This liberal reform orientation to the process is ensured by explicit exclusions—any political organizations that include armed struggle or violent confrontation and class struggle in its repertoire, that are oriented towards revolutionary change.

ATTAC, a Paris-based social democratic organization is the most visible representative of this approach towards social change, but the World Social Forum from its inception morphed into and became a significant expression of what emerged as the “antiglobalization movement”. This movement had its origins in the encounter of diverse forces of resistance formed in middleclass organizations in the “global north” and mounted against the symbols of neoliberal globalization such as the World Trade Organization and the G-7/8 annual summit. A defining moment in this movement, rooted in the organizations of the urban middle class—NGOs, unions, students, etc.–in both Europe and North America, included the successful mobilization against the MAI in Seattle. This mobilization was the first of a number of serialized events scheduled to unfold at important gatherings of the representatives of global capital—Genoa, Quebec, Melbourne, Dakar…

In Latin America the World Social Forum process, is the basic form taken by the “antiglobalization movement” in the search for “another world” (the latest event in this process was hosted by Lula, taking place in Bélem towards the end of January 2009). Apart from the absence of an internal division between the advocates of moderate reform (ethical globalization) and more radical change the antiglobalization process is designed to define and maintain the outer limits of permitted change; that is, controlled dissent from the prevailing model of global capitalist development. Not anti-globalization but a more ethical form. Not anti-capitalism but a more humane form of capitalism, a more sustainable human form of development. Not anti-imperialism because imperialism is not at issue.

The New Left and the Politics of No-Power

In the shape and form of class struggle the path towards social change in the 1960s and 1970s was paved with state power. That is, the forces of resistance, at the time based in the countryside, in the organizations and movements of the landless and near landless peasants, and in the urban-based organized labor movement; and for the most part led by petit-bourgeois middle class intellectuals, were concerned with the capture of state power. In the 1990s, in a very different context—neoliberal globalization—and in the wake of the Zapatista uprising in January 1994, there emerged on the left a postmodern twist to the struggle for social change: “social change without taking state power” (Holloway, 2002).

In the discourse of Subcomandante Marcos, the Zapatismo came to symbolically—or theoretically, in the writings of Holloway and others (for example, Burbach, 1994)—represent a “new way of doing politics”: to bring about social change without resort to class struggle or the quest for state power (Holloway, 2002). However, much of the Latin American Left appeared all o ready to retreat from class politics and engage the new way of “doing politics”. Some of the Left joined the struggle for change at the level of local politics and community development–to bring about social change by building on the assets of the poor, their “social capital” (Portes, 1998, 2000; Ocampo, 2004). Another part joined the “situationists” and other militants of “radical praxis” in an intellectual engagement with the forces of social and political disenchantment in the popular barrios of unemployed workers—in Gran Buenos Aires and elsewhere (Besayag and Sztulwark. 2000; Colectivo Situaciónes, 2001, 2002). This was in the early years of the new millennium. In the specific conjuncture of economic and political crisis, a generalized rejection of the “old way” of doing politics (“que se vayan todos”), the search for redemption and relevance left a large part of the left without a political project, without a social base for their politics.

Dynamics of Electoral Politics: What’s Left of the Left

With the advent of the new millennium, it was clear that the neoliberal model even in its revamped form, had failed to deliver on its promise of economic growth and general prosperity. Instead it had deepened existing class and global divides in wealth and income, and regime after regime was pushed towards its limits of endurance by the forces of popular mobilization. In this context, the political class in each country turned to the left, opening up new opportunities for groups that had hitherto concentrated their efforts on local politics and community development.  Governments of the day, many of them neoliberal client regimes of the US, fell to the forces of resistance and opposition.

Political developments in the region regarding this regime change led to a concern in the US, and widespread hopes and expectations on the Left, about a tilt to the left in national politics and what the press (Globe & Mail) has termed a “disheartening” triumph of politics over “sound economics”. A lot of this concern revolves around Hugo Chávez, who appears (to the press and U.S. policymakers) to be taking Venezuela down a decidedly anti-US, anti-imperialist and seemingly socialist path–and taking other governments in the region with him.

Chávez’s electoral victory was seen by many as the moment when a red tide began to wash over the region’s political landscape. In the summer of 2002, the Movement to Socialism (MAS) in Bolivia, led by militant coca growers’ leader Evo Morales, became the second largest party in the Congress while in December it achieved huge victories in municipal elections—in what was billed by the MAS itself as “la toma de los municipios”. The election to state power of Lula da Silva in Brazil (October 2002) wa followed by Nestor Kirchner in Argentina (May 2003), Tabaré Vasquez in Uruguay (November 2004), Evo Morales (December 2005), (December 2006) Rafael Correa in Ecuador (December 2006) and most recently Lucas Longo in Paraguay. The tide was checked in Mexico in the summer of 2006 when Lopez Obrador, presidential candidate of the PRD, fell just short of victory, and in Peru, where the nationalist Humala lost out to Alan Garcia, the once disgraced social democrat but reborn neoliberal. But it appeared to swell again with Daniel Ortega’s victory in Nicaragua—although, given his opportunism and religious rebirth, Ortega could hardly be viewed as on the Left notwithstanding his friendship with Chávez and Fidel Castro—and Rafael Correa.

Thus it appeared that Latin America had turned against the US-inspired—and dictated—neoliberal policies of structural adjustment and globalization by electing to state power a number of parties on the political left—although “moderate” or “pragmatic”. Centre-left regimes, some of which cherish their links with Cuba and relish throwing it in the face of the U.S. administration, which has shown itself to be extraordinarily ideological and non-pragmatic, now outnumber right-of-centre governments in the region. The days of the US-supported and instigated right-wing dictatorships and military rule are over, having long disappeared in the dustbins of history and replaced by a new breed of neoliberal regimes.

Latin America turns left?

These regimes in appearance (that is, as constructed in the rhetoric of public discourse) have changed or are changing economic course, ostensibly moving away from the neoliberal policies pushed by the US. This was the case in Argentina, for example where the Kirchner administration was compelled by the most serious economic and political crisis in its history to confront the IMF and the World Bank, and the US, by halting payments on the country’s external debt, redirecting import revenues towards productive and social investments, including short-term work projects demanded by the mass of unemployed workers that at the time constituted over 25% of the laborforce and who had taken to the streets, picketing highways in protest. The result: some three years later is an annual growth rate of 8%, the highest in the region.

Another example of apparent regime change was in Brazil, where and when in October 2002 the electorate after his third attempt voted Ignacio [Lula] da Silva, leader of the PT, into power, re-electing him in 2006 to a second term in office. The first President on the “left” voted into power since Allende in 1970, Lula is nevertheless (and for good reason, it turns out) very well received by Wall Street, if not Washington, which tends to view him as a thorn in the U.S. side. Indeed Lula played a major role in defeating the White House plan for a hemispheric free trade zone, and continues to annoy the U.S. with his support of Chávez-Morales-Correa axis in Latin American politics. In this context, the intellectual Left associated with the antiglobalization movement choose to see Lula as an opponent of neoliberal globalization. In fact, Lula, on behalf of Brazil’s agribusiness and other capitalist producers simply has been playing and continues to play hardball in negotiations over access to the U.S. market.

Elections of centre-left governments followed in Uruguay (2004), Chile (2005), Ecuador (2006) where the electorate was polarized between a business magnate, Alvaro Noboa, the richest man in the country and a committed neoliberal ideologue; and Rafael Correa, head of a centre-left coalition that appears to be taking Ecuador down the same path as Evo Morales is taking Bolivia, particularly in regard to a constituent assembly that might well, or is expected to, change the economic and social system as well as the correlation of class forces in the country’s politics. In this regard, elements of the political left in Ecuador, especially those associated with the “Coordinadora de Movimientos Sociales” (CMS), see a political opportunity to build a “radical bloc” on the basis of combined action “from above” (the government) and “from below” (the indigenous and popular movement). Whether this will happen (see Saltos, 2006) [4] remains to be seen. For one thing, it hinges on the capacity of the popular movement for active mobilization – to pressure the Correa government from below towards the left. On this the historic record is fairly clear. As observed by Pedro Stedile, leader of the MST, “without active mobilization the government gives nothing”.

With the election of Rafael Correa over Alvaro Noboa the popular and indigenous movement in Ecuador at least placed on the agenda of government action issues such as national sovereignty, nationalization of the country’s natural resources, agrarian reform, indigenous rights, subordination of payment on the external debt to social programs, renegotiation of oil contracts will the multinationals, the ending of the military bases in Manta, and Latin American (vs. continental) integration. Whether the government will act on these issues remains to be seen.

The conflict that ensued over the Constituent Assembly (CA) in Ecuador and Bolivia, where the CA was finally approved) is symptomatic of the profound legitimation crisis in the system of class domination in these and other countries (Saltos, 2006). Earlier and other forms of hegemony, such as “globalization” and the trappings of representative “democracy”, have lost their hold over people, having been totally undermined by the all too tangible and visible signs of the negative effects of neoliberal policies. The reign of Washington in the region appears to be in serious decline. Nor can Washington, in its efforts to preserve the status quo or the status quo ante, revert to the use of force—to bring back the Armed Forces to restore order. Its only recourse is to engage “civil society” in the project of “good governance”—to restore political order by means of a broad social consensus that reaches well beyond the state and the political class (Blair, 1997; OECD, 1997; UNDP, 1996; World Bank, 1994b).

What we saw in Quito and La Paz in regard to the Constituent Assembly went beyond a conflict between two branches of government. At issue was that those who elected Correa and Morales had come to the point of refusing to be subordinated to a state controlled by the dominant class and servile to Washington and the interests of global capital. On achieving political representation with the election of Morales and Correa, and Chávez for that matter, the forces in the popular movement were all too aware that the legislature was dominated by the “oligarchy” (the ruling class is understood in Bolivia and Ecuador). In this situation, Morales and Correa were compelled to construct a multi-class alliance and mobilize the forces of resistance to class rule and the neoliberal agenda of previous governments under the post-Washington Consensus. The result is the construction of a multi-ethnic or pluri-national state oriented towards what the Vice-President of Bolivia, Alvaro Garcia, conceives of as an Andean form of capitalism, and a new anti-american axis of regional politics and trade.

These and other such political developments in Bolivia and Ecuador are illustrative of what appears to be a regional trend. For example, in neighboring Colombia in October 2003 the voters elected a former union leader Luis Garzón as mayor of Bogotá. The election marked a swing to the left in Colombia’s second most important elective office, a clear challenge to the pro-US, scandal-ridden right-wing government of Alvaro Uribe. If we take these and other such developments together, especially in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, there does indeed seem to be a leftward swing in the political winds of change, leading …to declare that democratic elections are not enough: governments in the region also have to “govern democratically”, i.e. place no constrictions on the forces of opposition to the new agenda in national and regional politics.

Whither Socialism in a Sea of Crisis and Neoliberal Decline?

A serious discussion of the prospects for socialism in Latin America today must take into account world economic conditions in the current conjuncture, the state of US-Latin American relations relative to the project of world domination and imperialism, the specific impact on Latin American countries of these conditions and relations, the conditions deriving from the correlation of class forces within these countries, and the class nature and agency of the state relative to these forces.

World Economic Conditions and Their Impact on Latin America

Latin America’s “restructured” capitalist economy emerged from the financial crisis of the 1990s and the recession of the early years of the new millennium with its axis of growth anchored in the primary sector of agro-mineral exports (Cypher, 2007; Ocampo, 2007).  From 2003 to 2008 all Latin American economies, regardless of their ideological orientation or political complexion, based their economic growth strategy on the “re-primarization” of their export production, to take advantage thereby of the expanding markets for oil, energy and natural resources and the general increase in the price of primary commodities on the world market. The driving force of capitalist development in this period was agribusiness and mineral exports, export-oriented production of primary commodities leading to an increased dependence on diversified overseas markets and a change in the correlation of class forces, strengthening the right and, notwithstanding a generalized tilt to the Left at the level of the state, a weakening of the Left. Ironically, the primarization of exports led to the revival and strengthening of neoliberalism via the reconfiguration of state policy to favor agro-mineral exporters and accommodate the poorest section through populist clientelistic “poverty programs”.  In the context of a primary commodities boom and the emergence of a range of democratically elected centre-left regimes, trade union leaders were coopted and the social movements that had mobilized the forces of resistance to neoliberalism in the 1990s were forced to beat a retreat from the class struggle (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2009).

The link between U.S. finance capital, the growth of industry and the domestic market in Asia, and the primary commodities boom, was responsible for the period of high growth in Latin America from 2003 to 2008, when the boom went bust and most economies in the region succumbed to a financial crisis of global proportions and a system-wide deep recession that threatened to push the U.S. economy, at the centre of the gravitational force of this crisis, towards collapse. With the U.S. empire’s “over-extension” and the exceedingly high costs of prosecuting imperialist war in Iraq and maintaining its enormous military apparatus—military expenditures on the Iraq war alone increasing by millions each minute (as of February 17, 2009 US$ 597.7 billion) and likely to cost well over a trillion dollars before it is over—the capacity of the U.S. to weather the storm of financial crisis and a deepening recession has been seriously diminished. Given the absorption of the U.S. state in the Iraq war, governments in Latin America in the latest phase of capitalist development managed to achieve a measure of “independence” and “relative autonomy” in their relations with the United States.  And this has given leaders like Hugo Chavez a free hand in his efforts to push Venezuela in a socialist direction.

Impact of World Recession and U.S. Imperial Revivalism in Latin America

Latin America is feeling the full brunt of the world recession. Every country in the region, without exception, is experiencing a major decline in trade, domestic production, investment, employment, state revenues and income. The projected growth of Latin America’s GDP in 2009 has declined from 3.6% in September 2008 to 1.4% in December 2008 (Financial Times, January 9, 2009). More recent projections estimate Latin America’s GDP per capita as falling to minus two percent (-2%). [5] As a result state spending on social services will undoubtedly be reduced. State credit and subsidies to big banks and businesses will increase; unemployment will expand, especially in the agro-mineral and transport (automobile) export sectors. Public employees will be let go and experience a sharp decline in salaries.  Latin America’s balance of payments will deteriorate as the inflow of billions of dollars and euros in remittances from overseas workers, a major source of “international financial resource” for many countries in the region, declines. Foreign speculators are already withdrawing tens of billions of investment dollars to cover their losses in the U.S. and Europe. A process of foreign disinvestment has replaced the substantial inflow of “foreign investment” in recent years, eliminating a major source of financing for major “joint ventures”. The precipitous decline in commodity prices in 2008, reflecting an abrupt drop in world demand, has sharply reduced government revenues dependent on export taxes. Foreign reserves in Latin America can only cushion the fall in export revenues for a limited time and extent.

The recession also means that the economic and social structure, the entire socioeconomic class configuration on which Latin America’s growth dynamic in recent years (2003-2008) was based, is headed for a major transformation. The entire spectrum of political parties linked to the primary commodity export model and that dominate the electoral process will be adversely affected. The trade unions and social movements oriented toward an improvement in their socioeconomic conditions and wages, social reforms and increased expenditures of fiscal resources and social spending within the primary commodity export model will be forced to take direct action or lose influence and relevance.

The initial response of the left of center regimes that came to power in the context of a primary commodities boom and neoliberalism in its demise has largely focused on: (i) financial support for the banking sector (Lula) and lower taxes for the agro-mineral export elite (Kirchner/Lula); (ii) cheap credit for consumers to stimulate domestic consumption (Kirchner); and (iii) temporary unemployment benefits for workers laid off from closed small and medium size mines (Morales). The response of the Latin American regimes to date (up to the beginning of 2009) could be characterized as delusional, the belief that their economies would not be affected. This response was followed by an attempt to minimize the crisis, with the claim that the recession would not be severe and that most countries would experience a rapid recovery in “late 2009”. It is argued in this context that the existing foreign reserves would protect their countries from a more severe decline.

According to the IMF, 40% of Latin America’s financial wealth ($2.200 billion dollars) was lost in 2008 because of the decline of the stock market and other asset markets and currency depreciation. This decline is estimated to reduce domestic spending by 5% in 2009. The terms of trade for Latin America have deteriorated sharply as commodity prices have fallen sharply, making imports more expensive and raising the specter of growing trade deficits (Financial Times, January 9, 2009, p. 7).

The impact of these “developments” can be traced out not only in regime politics but on the class structure and the correlation of forces associated with this structure. Thus, the fall in the demand and price of primary commodities is resulting in a sharp decline in income, the power and the solvency of the agromineral exporters that dominated state policy in recent years. Much of their expansion during the “boom years” was debt-financed, in some cases with dollar and euro-denominated loans (Financial Times, January 9, 2009, p.7). But many of the highly indebted “export elite” now face bankruptcy and are pressuring their governments to relieve them of immediate debt obligations. And in the course of the recession/depression there will be a further concentration and centralization of agro-mineral capital as many medium and large miners and capitalist farmers are foreclosed or forced to sell. The relative decline of the contribution of the agro-mineral sector to the GDP and state revenues means they will have less leverage over the government and economic decision making. The collapse of their overseas markets and their dependence on the state to subsidize their debts and intervene in the market means that the “neoliberal” free market ideology is dead – for the duration of the recession. Weakened economically, the agro-mineral elite are turning to the state as its instrument of survival, recovery and refinancing.

In this new context, the “new statism” in formation has absolutely nothing “progressive” about it, let alone any claim to “socialism”. The state under the influence of the primary sector elites assumes the primary task of imposing the entire burden of the recession on the backs of the workers, employees, small farmers and business operators. In other words, the state is charged with indebting the mass of people in order to subsidize the debts of the elite export sector and provide zero cost loans to capital. Massive cuts in social services (health, pensions and education), and salaries will be backed by state repression. In the final analysis the increased role of the state will be primarily directed to financing the debt and subsidizing loans to the ruling class.

The State of U.S. Relations in Latin America in the Current Conjuncture

If the U.S. suffered a severe loss of influence in the first half decade of the early 2000s due to mass mobilization and popular movements ousting its clients, during the subsequent four years the U.S. retained political influence among the most reactionary regimes in the region, especially Mexico, Peru and Colombia. Despite the decline of mass mobilizations after 2004, the after-effects continued to ripple through regional relations and blocked efforts by Washington to return to relations that had existed during the “golden decade” of pillage (1990-1999).

While internal political dynamics put the brakes on any return to the 1990s, several other factors undermined Washington’s assertion of full scale dominance: (i) The U.S. turned all of its attention, resources and military efforts toward multiple wars in South Asia (Afghanistan), Iraq and Somalia and to war preparations against Iran while backing Israel”s aggression against Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Because of the prolonged and losing character of these wars, Washington remained relatively immobilized as far as South America was concerned.  Equally important Washington’s declaration of a intensified worldwide counter-insurgency offensive (the “War on Terror”) diverted resources toward other regions. With the U.S. empire builders occupied elsewhere, Latin America was relatively free to pursue a more autonomous political agenda, including greater regional integrations, to the point of rejecting the U.S. proposed “Free Trade Agreement”.

In this new context the spectrum of international relations between the U.S. and Latin America runs the gamut from “independence” (Venezuela), “relative autonomy” within competitive capitalism (Brazil), relative autonomy and critical opposition (Bolivia) to selective collaboration (Chile) and deep collaboration within a neoliberal framework (Mexico, Peru and Colombia). Venezuela constructed its leadership of the alternative nationalist pole in Latin America, in reaction to U.S. intervention.  Chávez has sustained its independent position through nationalist social welfare measures, which has garnered mass support. A policy of “independence” was made possible, and financed as it were, by the commodity boom and the jump in oil prices.  The “dialectic” of the US-Venezuelan conflict evolved in the context of U.S. economic weakness and over-extended warfare in the Middle East on the one hand and economic prosperity in Venezuela, which allowed it to gain regional and even international allies, on the other.

The autonomous-competitive tendency in Latin America is embodied by Brazil.  Aided by the expansive agro-mineral export boom, Brazil projected itself on the world trade and investment scene, while deepening its economic expansion among its smaller and weaker neighbors like Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay and Ecuador.  Brazil, like the other BRIC countries, which include Russia, India and China, forms part of newly emerging expansionist power center intent on competing and sharing with the U.S. control over the region’s abundant resources and the smaller countries in Latin America. Brazil under Lula shares Washington’s economic imperial vision (backed by its armed forces) even as it competes with the U.S. for supremacy.  In this context, Brazil seeks extra-regional imperial allies in Europe (mainly France) and it uses the “regional” forums and bilateral agreements with the nationalist regimes to “balance” its powerful economic links with Euro-US financial and multi-national capital.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the “imperial collaborator” regimes of Colombia, Mexico and Peru, which remain steadfast in their pro-imperial loyalties.  They are Washington’s reliable supporters against the nationalist Chávez government and staunch backers of bilateral free trade agreements with the U.S.

The other countries in the region, including Chile and Argentina, continue to oscillate and improvise their policies in relation to and among these three blocs. But what should be absolutely clear is that all the countries, whether radical nationalist or imperial collaborators operate within a capitalist economy and class system in which market relations and the capitalist classes are still the central players.

Socialism and the Latin American State in the Current Conjuncture of the Class Struggle

Control of the state is an essential condition for establishing socialism. But it is evident that a more critical factor is the composition of the social forces that have managed to achieve state power by one means or the other. From 2003 to 2008, in the context of a primary commodities boom and a serious decline in the mobilizing power of neoliberal globalization, one state after the other in Latin America has tilted to the Left in establishing a nominally anti-neoliberal regime. However, the only regime in the region with a socialist project is that of Chávez, who has used the additional fiscal resources derived from the sale of oil and the primary commodities boom—specifically the growing world demand for oil – to turn the state in a socialist direction under the ideological banner of the “Bolivarian Revolution”. All of the other center-left regimes formed in this conjuncture for one reason or the other, and regardless of their national sovereignty concerns vis-à-vis U.S. imperialism, have retained an essential commitment to neoliberalism, albeit in a more socially inclusive and pragmatic form as prescribed by the post-Washington Consensus (Ocampo, 1998). A surprising feature of these centre-left regimes is that not one of them—again Venezuela (and of course Cuba) the exception—use their additional fiscal revenues derived from the primary commodities boom to reorient the state in a socialist direction, i.e. to share the wealth or, at least, in the absence of any attempt to flatten or eliminate the class structure to redirect fiscal revenues toward programs designed to improve the lot of the subordinate classes and the poor. Again, Chávez” is the exception in the use of windfall fiscal revenues derived from the primary commodities boom (oil revenues in the case of Venezuela) to improve conditions for the working class and the popular classes. The statistics regarding this “development” (see Weisbrot, 2009) are startling. Over the entire decade of Chávez rule, social spending per capita has tripled and the number of social security beneficiaries more than doubled; the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39%, and extreme poverty by more than half. During the primary commodities boom (2003-2008), the poverty rate in Venezuela was cut by more than half, from 54% of households in the first half of 2003 to 26% at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty fell even more (by 72%). And these poverty rates measure only cash income, and do not take into account increased access to health care or education. However, in the other countries in the region governed by a centre-of-left regimes, not one of which is oriented towards socialism, conditions were and are very different. In a few cases (Chile, Brazil) the rate of extreme poverty was cut, but in all cases, despite recourse to an anti-poverty program following the PWC, government spending was relatively regressive. In only one case (Venezuela) is per capita PSE greater today than it was in 2000 in the vortex of a widespread crisis and a zero growth (Clements, Faircloth and Verhoeven, 2007). In many cases social programs and government spending was allocated so as to distribute more benefits to the richest stratum of households and the well to do than to the working class and the poor. [6] Even in the case of Bolivia, where the Morales-Garcia Lineres regime has a clearly defined anti-neoliberal and anti-US imperialist orientation, not only has the government not expanded social program expenditures relative to investments and expenditures designed to alleviate the concerns of foreign investors but the richest stratum of households benefited more from fiscal expenditures on social programs than the poorest (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2009). All of the centre-left regimes that have came to power in this millennium, especially Brazil and Chile, elaborated anti-poverty programs with reference to the PWC. In the case of Bolivia fiscal expenditures on social programs defined by the “new social policy” of the post-Washington Consensus have been supplemented by a populist program of bonuses and handouts, and popular programs in health and education, but these have been almost entirely financed by Cuba and Venezuela. As for the fiscal resources derived from Bolivia’s participation in the primary commodities boom they have been allocated with a greater sensitivity to the concerns of foreign investors than the demands of the working class and the indigenous poor.

In this situation what is needed is not only access to state power, which the social movements managed to ostensibly achieve via the election of Evo Morales, but an ideological commitment  of the government to socialism – to turn the state in a socialist direction. In this connection the Chávez regime is unique among Latin American heads of state. Even so the road ahead for the Bolivarian revolution in bringing about socialism of the twenty-first century promises to be long and “rocky”, as in the case of Cuba littered with numerous pitfalls but unlike Cuba with the likely growth in the forces of opposition.

Notes

1.  The basic elements of the new post-Washington Consensus policy agenda under the model of “sustainable human development (UNDP, 1996) are: (1) a neoliberal program of macroeconomic policy measures, including privatization, agricultural modernization and labor reform; (2) a “new social policy” supported by a “social investment fund” targeted at the poor; (3) specific social programs (policies related to health, education and employment) designed to protect the most vulnerable social groups from the brunt of the high “transitional” social costs of structural adjustment—and to provide a “human face” to the overall process; and (4) a policy of administrative decentralization and popular participation designed to establish the juridical-administrative framework for a process of participatory development and conditions of “democratic governance.

2.  Of course, this also applies to the U.S. as in the run-up to George W. Bush’s campaign for a second term in office. On 28 July, 2004, a caravan of fifty multi-billionaires met in Boston to defend and secure the electoral victory of the president. In the words of Count Mamoni – to a reporter of La Jornada (Jul 28, 2004) “We are the rich who wish to ensure that the president who we bought [paid for] stays in the White House”. He adds that “those of us who were born to wealth and privilege …[are] owners of the country [and must continues as such].” One of the participants in the “Join the Limousine” tour added that “we are all winners under this government, just some a lot more than others”.

3.  On this see De la Fuente (2001), Sánchez (2003) and Terceros and Zambrana Barrios (2002).

4.  Napoleon Saltos, Director of the CMS sees political developments in Ecuador as somewhere between Venezuela, which is implementing from above a sort of socialist plan without pressure from below, and Bolivia, where the government to some extent is subject to the pressures of a mobilized population.

5.  The onset of the recession in Latin America is evident in the 6.2% fall in Brazil’s industrial output in November 2008 and its accelerating negative momentum (Financial Times, January 7, 2009 p. 5).

6.  On this point see the IMF as in Alier and Clements (2007: 4-5): “Reallocating social spending to programs that most benefit the poor … [are] important for forging a more equitable society… [but] the distributive incidence of social spending varies greatly across programs, with primary education and social assistance programs having the most favorable impact, while higher education and social insurance programs tend to benefit middle and upper-income groups. Because of the low share of spending in pro-poor programs – such as social assistance – the majority of social spending benefits accrue to those that are relatively well off.”

References

Abers, Rebecca. 1997. Inventing Local Democracy: Neighborhood Organizing and Participatory Policy-Making in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Urban Planning.
Alier, Max and Benedict Clements. 2007. “Comments on Fiscal Policy Reform in Latin America,” Paper prepared for the Copenhagen Consensus for Latin America and the Caribbean—Consulta de San José, Costa Rica, October 20-25,
Aznar, José María. 2007.  América Latina. Una agenda de libertad. Madrid: Fundación para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales (FAES).
Besayag, Miguel y Diego Sztulwark. 2000. Política y situación: de la potencia wl contrapoder. Buenos Aires: Ed. De Mano en Mano.
Blair, H. 1997. Democratic Local Governance in Bolivia. CDIE Impact Evaluation, No. 3. Washington DC: USAID.
Booth, David. 1996. “Popular Participation, Democracy, the State in Rural Bolivia,” Dept. of Anthropology, Stockholm University. La Paz.
Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. 1996. The New Economic Model in Latin America and its Impact on Income Distribution and Poverty. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Burbach, Roger. 1994. “Roots of the Postmodern Rebellion in Chiapas,” New Left Review, 1 (205).
Casteñeda, J. G. 1994. Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War. New York:
Chilcote, R. H. 1990. “Post-Marxism. The Retreat from Class in Latin America,” Latin American Perspectives, 65 (17), Spring.
Clements, Benedict, Christopher Faircloth and Marijn Verhoeven. 2007. “Public Expenditure in Latin America: Trends and Key Policy Issues,” IMF Working Paper WP/07/21.
Colectivo Situaciones. 2001. Contrapoder: una introducción. Buenos Aires: Ediciones de Mano en Mano (Noviembre).
Colectivo Situaciones. 2002. 19 y 20: Apuntes para el nuevo protagonismo social. Buenos Aires: Editorial De mano en Mano, Abril.
CONAIE. 1994. Proyecto político de la CONAIE. Quito.
CONAIE—Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de Ecuador. 2003. Mandato de la I Cumbre de las Nacionalidades, Pueblos y Autoridades Alternativas. Quito: CONAIE.
Cooke, B. and U. Kothari, eds, 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London and New York: Zed Books.
Crabtree, John. 2003. “The Impact of Neo-Liberal Economics on Peruvian Peasant Agriculture in the 1990s,” Pp. 131-161 in Latin American Peasants, edited by Tom Brass, London, Frank
Craig, D. and Porter, D. 2006.  Development Beyond Neoliberalism? Governance, Poverty Reduction and Political Economy. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.
Crouch, C, and Pizzorno, A. 1978. Resurgence of Class Conflict in Western Europe Since 1968. London: Holmes & Meier.
Cypher, James M. 2007. “Back to the 19th Century? The Current Commodities Boom and the Primarization Process in Latin America,” Presented to the LASA XXVII International Congress Session ECO20, Montreal, Canada September 5-8.
Dávalos, Pablo. 2004. “Movimiento indígena, democracia, Estado y plurinacionalidad en Ecuador,” Revista Venezolana de Economía y Ciencias Sociales, 10 (1), Enero-Abril.
Davis, Mike. 1984. “The Political Economy of late-Imperial America,” New Left Review, 143, January-February.
_____. 2006. Planet of Slums. London: Verso.
De Castro Silva, Claudete y Tania Margarete Keinart. 1996. “Globalizacion, Estado nacional e instancias locales de poder en America Latina,” Nueva Sociedad, No. 142, Abil-Mayo.
De la Fuente, Manuel, ed. 2001. Participación popular y desarrollo local, Cochabamba: PROMEC-CEPLAG-CESU.
De la Garza, Enrique. 1994. “Los sindicatos en America Latina frente a la estructuración productiva y los ajustes neoliberales,” El Cotidiano, No. 64, 9-10, Mexico.
Delgado-Wise, Raúl. 2006. “Migration and Imperialism: The Mexican Workforce in the Context of  NAFTA,” Latin American Perspectives, 33 (2): 33-45.
Dominguez, J. and A. Lowenthal (eds.). 1996. Constructing Democratic Governance. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
ECLAC—Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 1990. Productive Transformation with Equity. Santiago, Chile: ECLAC.
Faux, Jeffrey. 2006. The  Class War. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Holloway, John. 2002. Change The World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today. London: Pluto Press.
Holloway, John and Eloina Peláez, eds.1998. Zapatista! Reinventing Revolution in Mexico. London: Pluto Press.
Levitt, Kari. 2003. “Grounding the Globalization Debate in Political Economy,” Notes for a Contribution Towards the publication of Globalization and Anti-Globalization. Halifax: Saint Mary’s University.
Lievesley, Geraldine. 2005. “The Latin American Left: The Difficult Relationship between Electoral Ambition and Popular Empowerment,” Contemporary Politics, 11 (1), March.
Macas, Luis. 2000. “Movimiento indígena ecuatoriano: Una evaluación necesaria,” Boletín ICCI “RIMAY,” Año 3, No. 21, diciembre, pp. 1-5.
Macas, Luis. 2004. “El movimiento Indígena: Aproximaciones a la comprensión del desarrollo ideológico politico,” Tendencia Revista Ideológico Político, I, Quito, Marzo, pp. 60-67.
Marcos, Subcomadante. 1994. “Tourist Guide to Chiapas,” Monthly Review
North, Liisa and John Cameron, eds. 2003. Rural Progress, Rural Decay: Neoliberal Adjustment Policies and Local Initiatives Bloomfield CT: Kumarian Press.
Ocampo, A. 2004. “Social Capital and the Development Agenda,” pp. 25-32 in Atria, R. et al. eds. Social Capital and Poverty Reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean: Towards a New Paradigm. Santiago: ECLAC.
Ocampo, José Antonio. 1998. “Beyond the Washington Consensus: an ECLAC Perspective,” CEPAL Review 66, (December), 7-28.
_____. 2007. “The Macroeconomics of the Latin American Economic Boom,” CEPAL Review 93, December.
OECD—Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. 1997. Final Report of the DAC Ad Hoc Working Group on Participatory Development and Good Governance. Paris.
Petras, James. 1997a. “The Resurgence of the Left,” New Left Review, No. 223.
_____. 1997b. “MST and Latin America: The Revival of the Peasantry as a Revolutionary Force,” Canadian Dimension, 31 (3), May/June.
_____. 2001. “Are Latin American Peasant Movements Still a Force for Change? Some New Paradigms revisited,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 28 (2).
_____. 2006. “Following the Profits and Escaping the Debts: International Immigration and Imperial-Centered Accumulation.”
_____. 2007. “Global Ruling Class: Billionaires and How They ‘Made It’,”
Petras, James and Henry Veltmeyer. 2005. Social Movements and the State: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador. London: Pluto Press.
_____. 2009. What’s Left in Latin America. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology,” Annual Review of Sociology,  24: 1-24.
_____. 2000. “Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of its Role in Development,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 32: 529-547.
Salbuchi, Adrian. 2000. El cerebro del mundo: la cara oculta de la globalización.4th. ed., Córdoba, Argentina: Ediciones del Copista.
Saltos Galarza, Napoleón. 2006. “La derrota del poder económico y la emergencia del poder constituyente,” Quito, December 1 <[email protected]>.
Sánchez, Rolando, ed. 2003. Desarrollo pensado desde los municipios: capital social y despliegue de potencialidades local. La Paz: PIED—Programa de Investigación Estratégia en Bolivia.
Saxe-Fernández, John and Omar Núñez. 2001. “Globalización e Imperialismo: La transferencia de Excedentes de América Latina,” in Saxe-Fernández et al. Globalización, Imperialismo y Clase Social, Buenos Aires: Editorial Lúmen.
Stedile, Joao Pedro. 2000.  Interview with James Petras, May 14.
Terceros, Walter and Jonny Zambrana Barrios. 2002. Experiencias de los consejos de participación popular (CPPs). Cochabamba: PROSANA, Unidad de fortalecimiento comunitario y transversales.
Toothaker, Christopher. 2007. “Chávez Cites Plan for ‘Collective Property’,” Associated Press, Posted March 27 [http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/sfl-achavez27mar]
UNICEF. 1989. Participación de los sectores pobres en programas de desarrollo local. Santiago, Chile: UNICEF.
UNDP. 1996. “Good Governance and Sustainable Human Development,” Governance Policy Paper. http://magnet.undp.org/policy.
Van Waeyenberge, Elisa. 2006. “From Washington to Post-Washington Consensus,” in Jomo,  K. S. and Ben Fine (eds.) The New Development Economics. London: Zed Books.
Weisbrot, Mark. 2009. “The Chávez Administration at 10 Years:  The Economy and Social Indicators,” The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), Washington DC, February 5.
World Bank. 1994a. The World Bank and Participation. Washington DC: World Bank, Operations Policy Department.
World Bank. 1994b. Governance. The World Bank Experience. Washington DC: World Bank.

Bobby Kennedy, brother Jack, and Martin Luther King were victims of state-sponsored terrorism – Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, and James Earl Ray falsely blamed for assassinations they had nothing to do with.

June 5 marks the 50th anniversary of RFK’s state-sponsored murder. Sirhan was set up as a convenient patsy, the same way Oswald and Ray were used.

Despite convincing evidence of his innocence, Sirhan was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, three years later commuted to life in prison.

Official accounts of the JFK, RFK and MLK killings suppressed key facts.James Fetzer’s earlier article titled “JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t” explained the following:

“We are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in US and world history where innocent individuals (or ‘patsies’) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes,” adding:

Eliminating RFK was

“in part intended to prevent a reinvestigation into his brother’s death…The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both (state-sponsored) conspiracies.”

“Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies.”

“Both involved complicity by local officials. Both involved planning by the CIA. Both were used to deny the American people (their) right to be governed by leaders of their own choosing.”

In 1968, RFK was virtually assured to be Democrat party nominee for president, favored to defeat Richard Nixon in November – an intolerable prospect for US dark forces, why Bobby had to be eliminated.

Fetzer explained RFK was struck multiple times by lethal gunfire. Sirhan’s gun was the wrong caliber. One bullet wound was “about 1.5 inches…behind (Bobby’s) right ear.”

Sirhan was never that close – “in front of him,” not behind. Autopsy results showed Bobby was struck by four bullets “fired from behind at upward angles…five others close to him…wounded by separate shots…as many as 13 fired.”

The LAPD was complicit in the assassination, suppressing and destroying evidence.

Autopsy results clearly proved Sirhan’s innocence. Security guard Eugene Cesar stood right behind Bobby with a drawn gun of the same caliber as the murder weapon.

It was never examined, nor was he considered a suspect or charged.

In January 2010, prison teacher Gerald Reynolds interviewed Sirhan (now in his mid-70s) – imprisoned for half a century, his life destroyed for a crime he didn’t commit.

Reynolds: “Did you do it?”

Sirhan: “Did I do what?’

Reynolds: “You know.”

Sirhan: “What do you want to know?”

Reynolds: “Did you kill Robert F. Kennedy?”

Sirhan: “No, I did NOT kill Robert F. Kennedy!”

Reynolds: “I know you didn’t.”

Sirhan: “How do you know?”

Reynolds said he studied details of the case, learned RFK was killed at point blank range by a bullet to the back of his head, explaining:

“The real assassin appears to be Kennedy’s 26 year old Ace Security Company bodyguard…Thane Eugene Cesar.”

“At least one eye witness claims to have seen Cesar with a smoking gun in his hand immediately after Kennedy fell to the floor.”

“An audio recording made during the assassination indicates that there were at least 11 shots fired (perhaps more) from possibly three different guns.”

“The conclusion is that Kennedy was shot three times from behind with a fourth bullet passing through his suit coat. The fact that you (Sirhan) were standing in front of Kennedy is undisputed…”

“(T)he coroner’s report (said) not one bullet entered Robert F. Kennedy from the front of his body.”

Sirhan: “Oh my! I knew this morning when I woke up that God was telling me he had something great in store for me today and this is it! God has sent you to me…Thank goodness somebody else knows.”

Sirhan stressed “they stole his life…(He’s) been rotting in that stinking prison…for nothing…The bastards stole my life. I have been denied parole 13 times.”

It’s now 15 times. US dark forces intend letting him die in prison – parole panel members saying he failed to show remorse or understand the enormity of his crime (sic) used as a convenient pretext to let him rot behind bars.

In March 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Sirhan’s right to appeal, ending his hopes for a new trial, his only chance to prove he had nothing to do with killing RFK.

That’s an indisputable fact!

Follow any new developments in his case at sirhansirhan.com.

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

One of the most spectacular series to come out recently was based on a novel by the greatest spy thriller of our time, John Le Carre (hence, we shouldn’t be surprised of the novel’s adaptation in TV/movie form). It’s called The Night Manager.

The plot had its own suspenseful and fascinating intrigues, but it was the simple moral-ethical objective of the series that anchored it to the conscience of its viewers: It’s not just ‘ideology’ and ‘bad ideas’ that are needed to murder and massacre, but a lethal avalanche of the most heinous weaponry available to humankind today.

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.

Nevertheless, the utter depravity of the situation is that forcefully displaced as refugees in the first place (that is how most of the Gazans reside in Gaza now anyways), they – unlike any other people on the planet – cannot escape toward anywhere when either a natural disaster hits or the routine Zionist massacres bombard the people of Gaza. They cannot even become refugees (for a second or even third time for some) now, like Syrians or Afghans fleeing from war. They are stuck, to use Fanon’s term, in the “zone of non-being, ‘soul-less,’ and to be treated like animals to be whipped or exterminated.

The surrounding slavishly pliant Arab regimes that barely even pay the lip service to the Palestinian cause that they used to are scandalously complicit and corrupt to the hilt. Sisi’s dictatorship in Egypt issued some statement because he did not want the massive protests to spread to his own country, whose population is naturally furious at ongoing Zionist terror in the region. Sisi calling on Israeli restraint against unarmed protesters pours with savage hypocrisy considering his massacre within one day of at least one thousand peaceful protesters when lodging his coup against a democratic government in 2013 in Egypt.

In the context of Zionist genocidal barbarism and ethnic cleansing still – yes, still – taking place despite dozens of toothless UN resolutions, a small but important step was taken by the Turkish government to immediately call for a summit denouncing these latest murderous atrocities against the people of Gaza – which is simply the disgustingly latest assault over the past 7 years against the civilian population. And it’s also important to be very candid: despite whatever criticisms and limitations of the Turkish state, it is ONLY the Turkish government (amongst the Islamicate world) that demonstrated the principled courage to do this right now as the carnage was continuing and would perhaps get worse (though certainly ‘isolated’ Iran is taking a similar position against Israeli barbarity). 

This is all the more ironic considering Turkey is a NATO member! 

All of the Arab despots were obviously forced to oblige their Turkish hosts because otherwise they would all be exposed as the Zionist collaborators that they truly are. 

Having said that, the Turkish government must continue doing much, much more for the Palestinian people, to end the inhumane and genocidal blockade of Gaza, and to support this struggling population’s liberation from Israeli settler-colonialism.

Indeed, one of the comparisons many astute analysts have made concerning this latest moment of the unleashing of Zionist state terror against Palestinians is with the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa in 1960, where, similarly, large numbers of unarmed anti-Apartheid protesters confronted the violent brutality of the security services of the white minority regime, resulting in 69 deaths. 

Nevertheless, there is an important difference between Sharpeville in 1960 and Gaza in 2018: the Sharpeville massacre occurred during the ostensible period of ‘decolonization’ – where even an imperial power like the US had to be rhetorically or superficially committed to affirming the formal political independence of the countries that suffered brutal colonialism.

How things have changed today? Could we have imagined that such an ignominious racist-sexist global predatory corporate imperial project once again would shine its bright red fire of bombs and bullets with the so-called ‘international community’ sitting idly by on the sidelines, merely ‘disturbed’ and ‘traumatized’ by images while sipping their lattes at Starbucks?

Simply put, here is what has happened: 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has enabled a project the West desperately was aching for, the attempted recuperation of a totalitarian Western hegemonic regime that took off from 1492. But now in the 21^st century, Western powers have realized that they must finesse over their internal differences because a far greater tectonic shift taking place in world affairs: ‘the West’ is being provincialized. The planet is not so small as white supremacists believed, and different societies are pursuing pluralistic projects of sovereignty, dignity, and justice that rejects a one-size-fits-all model of ‘development.’

With virtually the direct colonization model back in vogue in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, gone today are any of the pretenses to grand Wilsonian idealism that defined ‘American exceptionalism’ in opposition to those other horrible bloodthirsty European colonizers at the beginning of the 20^th century. 

One incredibly crucial but paradoxical signifier has now defined how the West has, to put it simply, ‘come full circle’ (in its imperial unity) once again: from the time when the US vehemently opposing the ‘tripartite’ attack of the UK, France, and Israel on Egypt in 1956, Trump’s US in 2018 is today forcefully leading the front in ‘tripartite’ assaults – as was done in Syria recently. And the war drums are beating for regime change in Tehran, for a wider assault in the Middle East that may can reasonably be expected to replicate the unashamed massacres of Gazans that just took place.  

In the ‘geoculture’ of the last two centuries following the Enlightenment, there has never been a period – including even in fascist and totalitarian interludes – where the project of liberal internationalism has been in such a serious crisis. 

Perhaps it’s time to pause and pose more meaningful and useful questions, however, such as, for example, why has ‘liberal internationalism’ been tied so closely, invested so heavily, in a patronizing neo-colonial model where terms such as ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘responsibility to protect’ – and even human rights, women’s rights, gay rights – become mere bludgeons to whip the ‘wretched of the earth’ ever more harshly – rather than actually empower those on the margins? Indigenous struggles for dignity and traditional ‘tools of conviviality’ have been bulldozed for the march of some mythical ‘progress’ narrative that in actuality has engendered an ‘Age of (unbearable) Anger” for the planet’s social majorities, as Pankaj Mishra aptly notes.

The Neocons, the ‘chicken hawks’ (who love to wage wars, but not actually to fight and die in them), the white supremacists, the ‘masters of the universe’ of the past 500 year world order, understand that the current juncture points to the most profound rupture of roughly a millennium: the political, economic, and cultural de-centering of the West. 

And it is precisely because they know this world-historical shift is taking place that this venal neo-colonial establishment has more or less dropped all of the pretenses and veneers of liberal internationalism, the rule of law, and all of the other goodies promised to those who would blindly accept the terms of our ‘Brave New World.’

In fact, we see the exact opposite taking place. Global hegemony and apartheid are trying to be instituted fullswing, with a racist, fascist state like Israel being the torchbearer of it – the most degenerate extension of a wounded empire.

None of this is to imply that the war criminals and their systems of oppression will succeed. On the contrary, these efforts at ‘re-colonization’ are taking place precisely because, to put it mildly: the game is over.

Or at the very least, it is gradually getting over. That is, the longue durée of the Western hegemonic project since 1492 is coming to its terminal demise. And so whatever differences the Western, white supremacist plutocracies may have amongst each other, their elites are quickly becoming cognizant of this fact and they will fight tooth and nail to preserve what they had. And to be clear, that means the preservation of unjust systems of relations of power, domination, and hierarchy that virtually murdered, enslaved, and displaced the entire world. Good luck convincing the bulk of the tormented world to ‘help’ these elites to preserve that!

Nevertheless, it’s also comical to see how when major global shifts in the balance of power takes place, who actually gets to do the ‘dividing’ and ‘ruling.’ The Euro-Atlantic rifts around Trump’s trade wars with Europe, his unlawful withdrawal from the iran nuclear accord that was benefiting European companies, and so on – are phenomena that rising states like China, Russia, India, etc. are chuckling at, since they have been the recipient of such classic colonial divide and conquer policies by Western states for hundreds of years. 

As far as the more sensible sections of the establishment in the Western plutocracies, they are endeavoring, though kicking and screaming while doing it, to come to terms to greater equilibrium and balance in world affairs, with poles of power stretching from Beijing to Moscow to Islamabad, Tehran, and Ankara. President Obama’s nuclear accord with Iran seems to sadly be the ONE identifiable marker of this less apocalyptic, more sensible thinking amongst these circles. The only imperial initiatives thereafter seem to only have accelerated and exacerbated the race to the precipice, toward more conflict, tension, and violence, rather than alleviating it.

Ultimately, there really is nothing more complicated than the question Noam Chomsky posed years ago: can the elites of the Western plutocracies tolerate the pain fact of their mere survival, with dignity and sustainable living of course, in a multipolar world, or must they risk at all costs the survival of the entire living species and the planet because they are no longer hegemonic, no longer number one.

These are questions that people not only in the global South need to think – and act fast! – about, but all peace- and justice-loving individuals and groups in global North as well. 

The cold-blooded murder of Gazans by Israeli terrorist forces, not to mention terror unleashed by both state and non-state actors routinely today, remind us of a central, immediate action urgently requiring our public intervention, one on which liberals in the global North and South don’t spend nearly enough of their mobilizing energy. This action is DISMANTLING – yes dismantling – the criminal military-arms industrial complex, ‘smuggled’ or ‘unsmuggled,’ the way it was beautifully done in the final episode of The Night Manager. The genocidal weaponry was literally blown up in that powerful final episode, and only a sociopath would not have felt a deep feeling of joy, comfort, even ecstasy – even while seeing images of flames and fire – knowing that these arms that were going to be deployed to principally murder and maim brown and black men, women, and children…were destroyed. It was a joyous occasion.

It must be remembered that the vast chunk of Israeli weapons are not made in Israel. Only by explicitly acknowledging that that these are American F-16s, American Apache helicopters, and American ammunition and weaponry that are simply employed by Zionist forces can we get a sense of how to disrupt the source that facilitates the ease of such killing…since the weapons just keep rolling in.

The billions and trillions in arms going to Western Middle Eastern protectorates to guard declining hegemonic power, resources, and its Zionist lapdog Israel will face a similar fate to what happened to those so-called ‘smuggled’ arms in The Night Manager, sooner or later. We hope the war criminals in charge of this decades-long global killing machine face a similar fate to the Eichmann-like moral monster in that series, good old ‘Dicky’. 

The Nuremburg principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the entire ambit of international law were not just for a period of the 20^th century when the West was hegemonic and there was a Soviet menace to contain. Sadly, it seems like not just the Right, but also the Liberal-Left, who have become so colonized by the idea that we are in a ‘state of exception’ (because of that ‘War on Terror’ we were supposedly fighting…though we’ve actually been arming Al Qaeda folks in Syria since 2011 – go figure!) so that it justifies and legitimizes something precisely like the nightmare that we saw against Gazans days ago (because Gazans are Palestinians, are Arabs, are Hamas terrorists, hence can be utterly dehumanized to the point of shooting them point blank, even eight month-old children).

Whether we like it or not, coloniality is still what defines our world order. It’s been hard to escape from as long as the guns have been pointing in one direction for around 500 years.

But the reverse is also true. We have finally been able to enter the most meaningful period of deepening and successful ongoing efforts at political, economic, cultural, and epistemological decolonization. Regardless of how starving and caged in they are, the refusal of the people of Gaza to back down and to continue to resist and demand their right to all of historic Palestine from where they were displaced, is what ought to prevent anyone from losing hope and faith in the resistance of the oppressed, everywhere.

*

Junaid S. Ahmad is the Director for the Center for Global Studies and Faculty in the School of Advanced Studies at UMT (Pakistan), and Secretary-General of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) (Malaysia), a Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) (Turkey), and a PhD candidate in Decolonial Islamicate Thought at the University of Leeds.

Zehra Yilmaz is strategic analyst based in Ankara who focuses on the Middle East. 

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. That was merely an added factor in what soon will be recognized as a classic debt trap. What is now looming over not just the US economy but also the global financial system is a crisis that could spell the end of the post-1944 dollar system.

First some basic background. When President Nixon, on advice of Paul Volcker, then at US Treasury, announced on August 15, 1971 the unilateral end of the Bretton Woods gold-dollar system, to replace it with a floating dollar, Washington economists and Wall Street bankers realized that the unique role of the US dollar as leading reserve currency held by all central banks and the currency for world commodity and other trade, especially oil, gave them something that appeared to be a gift from monetary heaven.

So long as the world needed US dollars, Washington could run government deficits without end. Foreign central banks, especially the Bank of Japan in the 1980’s and since the turn of the century, the Peoples’ Bank of China, would have little choice but to reinvest their surplus trade dollar earnings in interest-bearing AAA-rated US Treasury securities. This perverse dollar system allowed Washington to finance its wars in faraway places like Afghanistan or Iraq with other peoples’ money. During the Administration of George W. Bush, when Washington’s annual budget deficit exceeded annually one trillion dollars, Vice President Dick Cheney cynically quipped, “debt doesn’t matter; Reagan proved that.” Up to a point that appeared so. Now we are getting dangerously near to that “point” where debt does matter.

Federal Debt Rise

There are generally speaking three major divisions of debt measured in the US economy: Federal debt of Washington, corporate debt and private household debt. Today, owing in large part to ten years of historic low interest rates following the largest financial crisis in history–the 2007-2008 sub-prime crisis that became a global systemic crisis after September 2008–all three sectors have borrowed as if there was no tomorrow because of the near-zero Federal Reserve interest rates and their various Quantitative Easings. Nothing so radical can last forever.

Since the financial crisis erupted in 2008 US Federal debt has more than doubled from $10 trillion to over $21 trillion today. Yet conditions were made manageable by a Federal Reserve emergency policy that dealt with the financial and banking crisis by buying almost $500 billion annually of that debt. Much of the remainder was bought by China, Japan and even Russia and Saudi Arabia. Further debt levels were restrained by the bipartisan spending caps established in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that had kept recent deficits partially in check.

Now conditions of future US Federal debt and deficit growth are pre-programmed for systemic crisis over the next several years.

‘Trumponomics’ Disaster

The economics of the Trump Tax Cuts Act of 2017, signed in December, dramatically cut certain taxes on business corporations from 35% to 21%, but did not offset that with revenue increases elsewhere. The promise is that cheaper taxes will spur economic growth. This is a myth under present economic conditions and overall public and private debt burdens. Instead, the new tax law, assuming ideal economic conditions, will decrease expected revenues by a total of $1 trillion over the next 10 years. If the economy goes into severe recession, highly likely, tax revenues will plunge and the deficits will explode even more.

What the new Trump tax cut act will do is dramatically increase the size of the US annual budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as early as Fiscal Year 2019 the annual deficit that must be financed by debt will reach $1 trillion. Then the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee expects government debt issues of $ 955 billion for FY2018, compared with $ 519 billion in FY 2017. Then for FY 2019 and 2020 the deficit will exceed $1 trillion. By 2028, ten years from now, under mild economic assumptions, the size of the USA Federal debt will rise to an untenable $34 trillion from roughly $21 trillion today, and the deficit in 2028 will exceed $1.5 trillion. And this year 2018 alone, with historically low interest rates the cost of interest only on the total Federal debt will reach $500 billion.

Zombie borrowers…time bombs

Now after almost a decade of unprecedented low interest rates to bail out Wall Street and create new asset inflation in stocks, bonds and housing, the Fed is in the early stages of what some call QT or Quantitative Tightening. Interest rates are rising and have been for the past year, so far very gradually as the Fed is being cautious. The Fed however is continuing to raise rates, and now the Fed Funds stands at 1.75% after nearly ten years at effectively zero. Were they to stop now it would signal a market panic that the Fed knew something far worse than they say.

Because never in its history has the Federal Reserve indulged in such a monetary experiment with so low rates so long, the effects of reversing are going to be as well unprecedented. At the onset of the 2008 financial crisis the Fed rates were around 5%. That is what the Fed is aiming at to return to “normal.” However, with rising interest rates, the lowest credit sector, so-called non-investment grade or “junk bonds” face domino style defaults.

Moody’s Credit Rating has just issued a warning that, barring some sort of miracle, as US interest rates rise, and they are, as much as 22% of US corporations that are being kept alive borrowing at historically low interest, not only in shale oil but in construction and utilities, so-called “zombie” corporations, will face an avalanche of mass defaults on their debt. Moody’s writes that, “low interest rates and investor appetite for yield has pushed companies into issuing mounds of debt that offer comparatively low levels of protection for investors.” The Moody’s report goes on to state some alarming numbers: since 2009, the level of global non-financial junk-rated companies has soared by 58%, representing $3.7 trillion in outstanding debt, the highest ever. Some 40%, or $2 trillion, are rated B1 or lower. Since 2009, US corporate debt has increased by 49%, hitting a record total of $8.8 trillion. Much of that debt has been used to fund stock repurchases by the companies to boost their stock price, the main reason for the unprecedented Wall Street stock market bubble.

Fully 75% of federal spending is economically non-productive including military, debt service, social security. Unlike during the 1930s Great Depression when levels of Federal debt were almost nil, today the debt is 105% of GDP and rising. Spending on national economic infrastructure including the Tennessee Valley Authority and a network of federally-build dams and other infrastructure resulted in the great economic boom of the 1950s. Spending $1.5 trillion on a dysfunctional F-35 all-purpose fighter jet program won’t do it.

Into this precarious situation Washington is doing its very best to antagonize the very countries that it needs to finance these deficits and buy the US debt—China, Russia and even Japan. As financial investors demand more interest to invest in US debt, the higher rates will trigger the default avalanche Moody’s warns. This is the real backdrop to the dangerous US foreign policy actions of the recent period. No one in Washington seems to care and that’s the alarming fact.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

This past week, as the Italian populist party, ‘5-Star’, began to form a government, suddenly the realities of the Italian debt (government and bank) and the 7 year stagnating Italian economy got the attention of media, investors and politicians. 5-Star and its parliamentary ally, the League, campaigned during the recent Italian election on a program to unilaterally stimulate the Italian economy by fiscal policy spending and tax cuts and, if necessary, to leave the Eurozone system in order to take back control of its own monetary policy. Under the Eurozone rules, Italy, like all Eurozone members, gave up independent control of its banking system to the European Central Bank and other pan-national European institutions like the European Commission. Under Eurozone rules, Italy was also limited to a tight cap on its fiscal spending.

With no independent monetary policy and strict limits on its fiscal policy, all Italy could do in a recession or financial crisis, such as 2008-2010, was borrow money from the ECB and the Euro Commission (with help from the IMF–together the three pan-European institutions called the ‘Troika’). As it borrowed its government and private debt escalated. When the Eurozone slipped into a double digit recession in 2011-13, Italy’s crisis deepened. It borrowed still more, to pay the interest on the debt it had previously borrowed–the interest payments going to the Troika, and from the Troika to the northern Europe banks (especially Germany) from which the Troika in turn raised funds with which to lend to Italy (and other economies during the debt crises in Europe 2010-2015).

By 2013 Italy’s real economy had collapsed by 10% below 2008 GDP levels, and unemployment rose to near 20%. Italy government’s debt to GDP has risen from 100% in 2008 to 130% by 2017, and its real economy has stagnated since 2013, today still at 5% below 2013. Italy thus has never recovered from the 2008-09 crash and subsequent 2011-13 double dip Europe recession.

To pay for the interest and principal on its rising debt load, Italy was required by the Troika to impose fiscal austerity on its populace. Successive Italian governments extracted the surplus with which to pay its rising debt, causing the Italian economy to stagnate. This vicious debt cycle since 2011 has locked Italy into a debt-imposed recession and stagnation–not unlike Greece and other Euro periphery economies.

Italy was not alone in this self-sustaining debt depression cycle. Greece, and indeed much of the rest of the European southern periphery, found itself in a similar situation. Greece was thrust into what is now a ten year economic depression, with severe austerity imposed on it by the Troika. That depression has still not ended, with Greece’s GDP still 20%-22% below 2008 levels.

The Troika imposed austerity extracted income from Greek society to pay the interest on the debt owed to the Troika, to northern Europe banks, and to international bond investors. The first Greek debt crisis in 2010 was followed by a second in 2012, as more Troika debt was provided to ‘roll over’ and pay the old 2010 debt. The crisis erupted again in 2015, as still more debt was provided to pay for the 2012 debt. Throughout the period, Greek workers, small businesses and consumer households were squeezed to acquire the money capital to pay the Troika-investors-bankers. Today Greek debt as a percent of GDP is virtually the same as it was in 2012. And another round of debt and austerity is now on the agenda starting August 2018, as the 2015 debt deal expires. All that’s changed is that private bankers and investors will now ‘roll over’ the debt this time and repay the Troika (contrasted to Troika debt roll over that repaid the private investors and assumed their debt in 2012). Austerity continues nonetheless; only who gets paid the interest and principal on the Greek debt will change. (For my book analyzing this history of the Greek debt crisis, see ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, Clarity Press, October 2016), and my series of articles on this blog since 2015.)

What we’re witnessing in Italy now is a repeat of the Greek debt crisis, with a populist government (5-Star) attempting to extricate itself from the economic vice-grip of the Eurozone and its pan-national institutions (European Commission, European Central Bank, IMF) that have served as the institutions for extracting payments to cover the debt it has provided Italy since 2010 to stay afloat (i.e. stagnate) economically. Austerity was imposed on Italy as well as Greece beginning in 2010. But being a larger economy, with more sophisticated pro-Eurozone capitalist parties, Italy was kept within the Euro fold and the Italian debt crisis was contained–but no longer. This changed with the election of the populist 5-Star movement and its attempt to assume control of government fiscal and monetary policy.

The case of Italy is more dangerous to the Eurozone than was (and is) Greece. Italy’s government debt is 130% of GDP, but its private sector and bank debt is potentially more destabilizing for the Eurozone. No less than $500 billion in non-performing bank loans hang over the private economy in Italy (nearly $2 trillion still Europe wide). Europe never removed the bad debt from bank balance sheets after 2008. That’s why its economy continually stagnates and is unable to recover fully from the 2008 crash. Recoveries are short and shallow and stagnation (and goods price deflation) is a perpetual problem.

The Euro periphery is even more severely impacted. The European Central Bank’s ‘QE” free money injections since 2015 have not gone into real investment, and especially not been directed the southern periphery where it is most needed. Most of the ECB free money has gone to German, French and other northern Europe banks that didn’t need it, and they in turn have mostly loaned it to Euro financial investors who have sent a good part of it offshore to US markets. Europe stagnates as a consequence.

The crisis in Italy has just begun–and it is occurring as the Eurozone (and UK) economies are again beginning to stagnate, and possibly head for a ‘triple dip’ recession in 2019. The populist 5-Star party, should it be allowed to form a government, is declaring it will not abide by Eurozone rules limiting its fiscal stimulus spending; it is also raising the possibility of assuming independent control of its monetary policy. For the latter, however, it will have to leave the Euro and establish its own currency. Both these policy directions have the Troika and the northern Eurozone elites increasingly worried.

When the Greek populist party, Syriza, came to power in 2015 it also declared it would do the same as 5-Star is now advocating. Within six months, however, the Troika smashed Syriza. The ECB sabotaged Greek banks and drove the economy even deeper into depression by mid-2015 to put pressure on Syriza and get it to back off its policies. Syriza party leaders–Alex Tsipras and Yanis Varoufakis–caved in by the summer 2015. Varoufakis was sidelined in the Syriza by June and Tsipras ignored the Greek referendum he himself had called in July and cut a deal with the Troika to extend Greek debt and austerity measures in August 2015. Ever since August 2015, Syriza and Tsipras have gone along with whatever the Troika has demanded, as more and more austerity was proposed on Greek workers annually with every review of the Greek 2015 debt deal.

All the political parties in Greece have now lost legitimacy, including the once populist challenger, Syriza. Now Greeks are taking to the streets in widespread strikes and demonstrations, as another round of Troika-investor austerity and debt is coming up in August 2018.

The key question is whether the Italian populist party and challenger to the banker-Germany dominated Eurozone system will fall into the same trap as Syriza? The Eurozone elites will attempt to maneuver and put increasing pressure on 5-Star to bring it to heel; to drop its insistence on pursuing independent fiscal stimulus or moving toward re-establishing an independent Italian central bank (and private banking system) and eventual currency. With no fiscal of monetary independence, 5-Star and Italy are at the mercy of the Troika and Eurozone(Germany). What will be a 5-Star government’s fiscal stimulus policy once it forms a government? Will it back off its program to assert independent central bank control–or to leave the Euro if necessary?

The Troika and Eurozone elite will have a harder time taming Italy than it had with Greece. Italy’s private banking system is nearly insolvent. With a $500 billion nonperforming loan overhang, banks like Monte dei Pasche, Banco Populare, Banco BPM, and even Banco Intesa are fragile,if not technically insolvent (aka bankrupt). Efforts to pressure Italy’s new government by withholding lending to Italy’s central bank, and in turn private banks, will only exacerbate the crisis of the Italian banking system further. Moreover, northern Europe banks–especially French banks Credit Agricole and BNP Paribas–are deeply integrated and exposed to Italian banks. Contagion could easily spread from Italy to France and beyond. The Troika-Germany will therefore probably go softer with Italy than it did with Greece initially. It will likely allow Italy to exceed Eurozone fiscal spending caps, and the ECB will likely provide even more debt to Italy’s government and private sector.

This response is not assured, however. It may try to apply its ‘Greek Debt’ strategy to Italy as well. Popular resistance could then spread throughout the Eurozone southern periphery. And that instability will further ensure the Eurozone economy will slip into triple dip recession in 2019–just as this writer is predicting the US economy will do the same.

*

Dr. Jack Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Poland is proposing to host a permanent US military base on its territory.

Poland wants to replace Germany as the US’ preferred partner in Europe, taking advantage of American distrust with Berlin over Nord Stream II and trade disagreements while capitalizing on the Pentagon’s desire to “contain” Russia, thus satisfying multiple strategic objectives at once. The Polish leadership believes that the region-wide “Three Seas Initiative” of 11 other Central and Eastern European states that it wants to lead is ideologically compatible with the Trump Administration’s anti-liberal populism and represents another strategic convergence with the US. Paradoxically, however, while Poland is striving to advance its national sovereignty, it’s nevertheless sacrificing it by wanting to host an American military base, which is why a deeper explanation of this proposal is necessary.

Poland isn’t just strategically important to Germany, Russia, and the US, but also to China, being Beijing’s top partner in the 16+1 collection of Central and Eastern European states and correspondingly one of its top Silk Road nodes. China is constructing a high-speed railway between the Hungarian and Serbian capitals that’s expected to travel further southwards through the Balkans in connecting to the Chinese-owned Greek port of Piraeus, one of the largest in Europe and the envisioned terminal of what can be called the Balkan Silk Road. This project, however, could also expand northwards through Slovakia and thus to Poland, the largest country in the region and the heart of the “Three Seas Initiative”, which would be a game-changing geopolitical development if it ever happened.

The US would clearly oppose the unrestricted expansion of a Chinese-built multipolar transnational connective infrastructure project into the EU via the “Balkan backdoor”, but any potential Hybrid War disruption that it could cause in the Balkans in order to offset this outcome could be avoided if America gains control of this Silk Road corridor through a military base in its most important Polish node. Although appearing at first glance to nullify the strategic utility of this project, it might nevertheless be the only way that the US would allow it to be built, which if successful, would enable Poland to “balance” between the US & China as it seeks to undermine its German & Russian Great Power neighbors.

Curiously, Polish and American interests converge through the Balkan Silk Road because this Chinese project could reroute Western European-East Asian trade from the Russian-transiting Eurasian Land Bridge and correspondingly strengthen the “Three Seas Initiative” to the point where it could challenge German control the EU and make a bid for decentralizing the bloc back to a national sovereignty-focused collection of states from its current status as a bunch of German neo-imperial colonies. Assessing the grand strategic implications if a US base in Poland leads to Washington accepting the Chinese-built Balkan Silk Road’s possible expansion to Warsaw one day, this would clearly result in serious long-term losses for Germany and Russia while being a major victory for the US and China.

As for Poland, its benefits will entirely depend on how well the government can maintain a “balance” between the US’ growing military influence and China’s future economic one.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

The elections in Italy have pulled the veil back from the face of capitalist democracy and shown it to be a sham, a con game run by capital, with the stronger capitalists ever plotting the demise of the smaller ones and all of them plotting to stab the working majority in the back while fleecing their pockets to make, through systemised theft, something called profit.

Except in the socialist nations, working people have no say whatsoever in the control of the economy and their well-being. They are forced instead to play an insulting game in which various parties of capital offer them candidates to choose from, in what are called “elections,” but which in fact are selections, that is, a system of appointing, through the illusion of the popular will, pre-selected candidates of capital to carry out capital’s agenda while candidates that represent the interests of the majority who have to work for a living are not permitted to be heard or are marginalised and ridiculed.

In Italy the real socialist left, the Italian Communist Party, has been reformed and performed well relatively speaking in the elections but its recent reappearance in the swamp of populist, liberal and right wing parties was too late to prevent the sad charade that is taking place with the 5 Star Movement making a coalition deal with the right wing Northern League party to form a government only to have their nominee of finance minister blocked by the intervention of Germany, resulting in a fracturing of the coalition, and cries of Berlin tyranny when it is the tyranny if German and Italian capital working together that has produced this mess. The Italian press are pretending to be shocked by this German intervention, made so directly and openly in thwarting the so-called democratic will of the people while the Germans complain about the irresponsible Italians threatening the euro, the EU and German capital’s control of Europe.

Meanwhile in France President Macron, the messenger boy for French and German capital, and selected by them against the will of the working people, is trying to force through what are termed politely “reforms,’ a euphemism for all out class war against working people by capital to make their lives poorer, more difficult, more miserable in order to enrich themselves. When one person steals something from a citizen it is called robbery but when the entire citizenry is robbed by a few, the word used is not robbery but “labour flexibility.” And it is always the working men and women who have to be more “flexible,” never the capitalists. Again, in France, the series of strikes by unions to try to protect themselves from this robbery are hobbled by still weak political support from the French left. To defeat the “reforms” a general strike is necessary to bring down the Macron government as some labour leaders have called for, a revolutionary development if it took place but there is no strong organised political organisation to effectively organise and maintain such an action. The French Communist Party has joined in marches and adds its support to the struggle but it is not the powerful force it once was since it discredited itself by joining government of capital in the past with the good intentions of having a say at the table, but only succeeded in giving ground to capital to carry out “austerity” the word they use all the time for the deliberate impoverishment of the people.

In Britain, whose working class has been devastated for 40 years by the combined austerity assault of the Tories and so-called Labour Party, the majority vote to leave the European Union is being thwarted at every step by the very people that arranged the vote under pressure from British and foreign capital that benefits from Britain remaining in the EU while free speech is trampled on. Canada, whose working class, usually mislabelled a “middle class,” has suffered increasing cuts to services and a degradation of living standards since the fall of the USSR, is embroiled in the scandal of the government decision to use tax payers money to build a pipeline for an American oil company that takes Canadian oil out of the ground for next to nothing and wants it shipped to ports on the west coast to sell to China. Canadians will not benefit from this project whatsoever and oppose it but the party in power sees their role as agents for American oil instead of the people they were elected by.

The American political system, always a spectacle, has descended into a cartoon democracy in which there is no real choice for the people and when they participate in that charade and choose one of the two candidates forced on them, each as corrupt and criminal as the other, are told their “choice” was arranged by Russia and are insulted as 45 % of them according the United Way live in real poverty in a country where you have to pay for everything.

We can go on like this with all the capitalist democracies but the point is that all these games are designed to enrich one class at the expense of the other. And what is the response in the former socialist states in Europe and the USSR, in the former social democratic countries turned into neo-liberal cesspools, as people wallow in the mess the capitalists have brought them in the wake of their false promises and illusions but to move towards fascism, or its bedfellow, monarchy.

But where is the Left to re-establish the socialist movement in the face of universal repression and carry on the struggle for social, economic and political justice that can only exist under socialism. Jose Saramago, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, author most famously of Blindness, and member of the Portuguese Communist Party, stated around 2004 or so that “The left has no fucking idea of the world it’s living in.”

The statement was a deliberate challenge to all the workers parties the world over including his own that went unanswered and remains unanswered. The question is not of ideology or good intentions, or correct analysis of the situation for the good intentions are there among many, and the analysis, and Marx has never been more right than today. It is more a matter of daring to take action, to take steps to enter into the situation in a serious way. I don’t have the answers to this, but it has to be asked, again, where is the left? What are we doing in the face of the sustained war on working people that has become a war of scorched earth? In Cuba we are present, commandante; in China, North Korea, in Venezuela, in Vietnam. Yes, but where are the rest of us?

And we are told, “We are weak?” But why are we weak? Or, “We are growing.” Very good, but why aren’t we growing more quickly? “They control the media.” Yes, they do. So where is ours? “They are jailing and murdering us.” Why do we let them? In other words, dear reader why are we sitting here doing nothing when work needs to be done?

*

Featured image is from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Throughout their history, Washington and Israel were never held accountable for endless high crimes of war, against humanity and genocide.

Hegemons make their own rules, doing whatever they please, ignoring rule of law principles with impunity – how America always operates, waging endless wars on humanity, seeking dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Along with NATO, Israel is an appendage of Washington’s imperial agenda, a sort of regional cop on the beat serving US interests and its own – including maliciously harming Palestinians, Gazans most of all, ignoring their fundamental rights, holding them hostage to its viciousness with full US support and encouragement.

As expected on June 1, Washington vetoed a Kuwait-drafted Security Council resolution, denouncing “excessive use of force” against (peaceful) Gazan demonstrators by IDF soldiers.

The Trump regime acted alone – 10 SC member-states voting “yes,” four abstaining (Britain, Ethiopia, the Netherlands and Poland – shamefully in deference to Washington and Israel, short of voting “no.”

Following the US veto, Kuwait’s UN envoy said

“(t)he message given by the council today, as it votes against this, is that the occupying power enjoys an exception” to fundamental rule of law principles binding on all nations, adding:

“Why do Palestinians continue to suffer? Why does the international community fail to act? Why does Israel enjoy impunity? Why are all these lives lost and all this blood shed?”

More Palestinian blood was shed on Friday. Volunteer medic Razan Ashraf Najjar was lethally shot in Gaza during another peaceful Great March of Return demonstration, scores more Palestinians injured from live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets and toxic tear gas.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry Dr. Asraf al-Qedra, Israeli snipers targeted five medical personnel treating wounded Gazans.

Najjar wore a clearly-marked medic vest, lethally shot for doing her job, treating and helping to evacuate wounded Gazans to a field clinic – standing well inside Israel’s border with Gaza, threatening no one.

She was shot in the back, the bullet (reportedly an exploding dum dum one) shattered her heart, likely killing her instantly, other medics with her wounded.

Since Great March of Return demonstrations began over two months ago, two Gazan medics were killed, 223 others injured, at least 29 from live fire.

According to political activist, human rights champion, Palestinian Medical Relief Society head Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, killing Najjar is one of countless Israeli high crimes of war and against humanity, adding:

Gazan medical teams continue treating wounded Palestinians responsibly despite Israeli state terror.

Responding to Washington’s Friday veto, PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashwari called the action clear proof of its “corrupt and blindfolded support to Israel, so that they can ensure Israel’s crimes and violations against an unarmed civilian population remain unpunished, and continue with impunity,” adding:

“This…reckless behavior reflects the morally corrupt American policies and manifests the arrogance of power used by the United States against international principles.”

“This veto is another sharp blow by the United States targeting justice, and the credibility of the international community, represented by the United Nations” – failing to uphold fundamental international law, applied only to victims of US/Israeli viciousness.

The world community consistently fails to hold Washington and Israel accountable for high crimes too egregious to ignore.

It’s why they get away with mass murder and much more – time and again with no end of it in prospect.

*

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

If anyone needed proof as to the power of mainstream media they need look no further than Eastern Europe, where cash-strapped nations are militarizing over the phantom threat of ‘Russian aggression.’

President Barack Obama was not [?] a war criminal despite US involvement in wars in Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan and against Daesh.  His predecessor George W. Bush was. Apart from anything else, his administration tortured captives. Was the former British minister, Tony Blair, the closest ally of Bush also a war criminal? And should he now be prosecuted and tried for war crimes?

Did Blair lie over the reason for going to war with Iraq, the supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that he alleged Iraq possessed? It depends on how you define lie. If you define lie as saying this cat is white, when in fact it is black, he did not lie on the big issues. But what he did do was give the impression the cat was assuredly white when it was, in fact, a sort of dark greyish white. As far as the public could tell from what he told them, the intelligence services did seem to have the goods on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

But as a later independent report made by a distinguished judge appointed by the government made clear, the caveats presented to Blair by the intelligence services were left out and the presentation was polished by Blair’s office. Parliament and the public were never given the pre-polished version.

That he was not prepared to persuade Bush to wait a few more weeks until the evidence of Hans Blix, the chief UN arms inspector, was in the midst of collecting on the ground inside Iraq, was gravely irresponsible. Moreover, sanctions had Saddam boxed in. He was, as was obvious to many outside the White House and Downing Street, able to harm no one outside his country. The UN policing and inspecting, imposed after the first Gulf War, had led to ridding Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction. The war itself had effectively wiped out Saddam’s air force, navy and broken the back of his army. Evidence has come to light that Bush, with Blair’s knowledge, had given the green light for going to war long before Blix got to work. Blair denied this and covered it up.

Blair also lied about the suicide of the government’s weapons expert, David Kelly, who shortly after he was ousted in the press as the source claiming the government’s public dossier on Iraq’s weapons had been “sexed up”, killed himself. Although an inquiry exonerated Blair for any blame for precipitating the suicide, a BBC interview much later caught Blair lying in a way we could all understand. He told the interviewer:

“I do not believe we had any option, however, to disclose his name [to the press].”

Until that day, Blair had always maintained that it was “completely untrue” that his government had done this.

In an article in The Financial Times, Rodric Braithwaite, former UK ambassador to Moscow and later chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee that prepares intelligence for the prime minister, wrote, “Stiff in his opinions, but often in the wrong, Blair has manipulated public opinion, sent our soldiers into distant lands for ill-conceived purposes, misused the intelligence agencies to serve his ends and reduced the Foreign Office to a demoralised cipher because it keeps reminding him of inconvenient facts”.

Can Blair be prosecuted for war crimes? Iryna Marchuk, an associate professor of law at the University of Copenhagen, who has studied in detail this question, told me that the government-appointed Chilcot inquiry that lasted from 2009 to 2015 did blame the government for the war. However, it did not point a finger at individuals responsible.

She, however, adds to the Chilcot conclusion:

“It was an unnecessary war, thousands were killed and a country almost destroyed and fingers can be pointed.”

There is enough information, she argues, available for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to start an investigation to see if the court could build a case sufficient to send Blair to trial because of his responsibility for war crimes. “It is not going to happen overnight. The ICC is still looking at the evidence. The ICC prosecutor examined the Blair case before, but his successor, Ms Fatou Bensouda, in 2014 re-opened the case.”

Tony Blair must worry day and night that he might be prosecuted. After all, it took the Serbian war criminal, Radovan Karadzic, 20 years before he was brought to trial and convicted. He is now serving a 40-year sentence.

There are human rights organisations, like the European Centre of Human Rights, working to collect evidence and to push the ICC prosecutor forward in a case that has great ramifications.

It is time overdue and the evidence is compelling that Blair be sent for trial. It was not necessary to launch a war that killed tens of thousands of children, either directly or for want of the previously available medicines and hospitals. The ICC must get on with it.

First published in April 2018.

Trump is engaged in a trade war not only with China, but also against many of America’s closest allies and trading partners including Canada, Mexico, South Korea, France and Germany.

***

The heat has been rising recently in the relationship between the US and Germany. Despite Washington’s regular attempts to bring its allies to heel under the auspices of their cooperation as part of NATO and the fabricated threat of a “common enemy” as represented by Russia, Europe’s largest economy is increasingly irritating its transatlantic partner by strengthening its own positions. The main reason for this is purely economic in nature.

After all, in political terms Germany has remained a US protectorate and even an officially occupied country ever since the end of World War II.

But in an economic sense, the opposite picture has emerged — the US is now practically a German colony. America’ trade deficit with that country is perilously close to $70 billion a year, taking the honors for second place and trailing behind only the imbalance in US commerce with China. President Donald Trump doesn’t like this situation and wants to change it. But, despite his stated desire to protect the US and US workers by his actions, there is every reason to suspect that his true goals are to harm America’s competitors and undermine Berlin’s positions.

According to the director of the Dusseldorf-based Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), Gustav Horn, Trump’s line on trade could push Germany into a recession. And there are very real grounds for concern: although the risk of a recession was estimated at 6.8% in March 2018, just one month later that probability has now increased to 32.4%, i.е. the likelihood has almost quintupled! Protectionist statements by the US president have a profound impact on the financial markets and the economy throughout Germany.

Germany’s current period of rapid economic growth has now lasted for five years. That’s a good long run by today’s standards, particularly considering the economic problems in the other countries of Europe. Unemployment in Germany is now at such a low level that corporations and firms often have to decline orders because of their labor shortage. The recent, record-setting tax revenues brought in by Angela Merkel’s government also leap to mind. But the very strength of Germany’s export-oriented economy may also prove to be a weakness. Trump the “protectionist” is very displeased with the countries that have a trade surplus with the US. And Berlin, which he claims is ostensibly sucking the marrow out of the American economy, has been singled out by him for criticism on more than one occasion, along with China and Japan.

In January 2017, the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Deutsche Bank $425 million for violating American anti-money laundering laws with a scheme that moved approximately $10 billion out of Russia between 2011 and 2015. The NY DFS also lectured Germany’s biggest bank with the admonishment: “In today’s interconnected financial network, global financial institutions must be ever vigilant in the war against money laundering and other activities that can contribute to cybercrime and international terrorism.”  This was understood to mean that the bank had been working with clients who were among the targets of the sanctions that had been levied due to the events in Ukraine.

At around the same time, Trump dealt a heavy blow to the German automotive industry. In an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper, in which he was purportedly defending the interests of US carmakers, he harshly criticized BMW, Volkswagen, and Daimler for trying to export too many cars into the US instead of building them on American soil, threatening those automakers with a 35% border tax.

The reaction was swift. Volkswagen was the first to respond, confirming its agreement with the US Justice Department to pay a fine of $4.3 billion dollars stemming from its diesel emissions scandal, as well as “additional measures to further strengthen the system of oversight.”

It is quite telling that Trump chose the Germany automotive industry to use as an example when he flexed his new protectionist policy. It wasn’t just Germany itself he chose for his “whipping boy,” but the very symbol of that country’s economic might — its automakers. In fact, we have now seen how Berlin is no longer America’s privileged partner in Europe, but has instead become its biggest economic competitor, against whom a war with a preordained outcome can be declared.

In addition, it’s worth noting how Trump’s advisor on trade policy, Peter Navarro, in a January 2017 interview with the Financial Times accused Germany of manipulating the undervalued euro, allowing Berlin to boost its exports and “exploit” the US as well as its own EU partners. He pointed out that between 2015 and 2016 the euro declined 25% amidst the European Central Bank’s record-setting currency emissions. The fact that Berlin is merely following the example set by Washington itself, as well as Beijing, was something that Trump’s advisor failed to mention. In addition, Navarro named Berlin as the biggest hurdle to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement.

The man who was once seen as Trump’s likely nominee to become the US ambassador to the EU, Ted Malloch, went even further, claiming in January 2017 that the eurozone was at death’s door and that the euro “could collapse in the next 18 months.” In fact, he was expressing the opinion of Donald Trump himself, who predicted in an interview with Bild that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would not last long and that many European Union countries would soon follow Britain out the EU exit door.

So the US attacks on Germany are nothing new. But previously those had been limited to just Trump’s words and infamous tweets. Although those had serious consequences, their effect can’t be compared to that of tangible actions. Now Washington has moved from words to deeds and seems to mean business, as evidenced by the March tariffs on Chinese goods.

“We don’t yet know whether U.S. punitive tariffs will eventually also apply to European goods, but concerns are mounting,” explained Gustav Horn.

It should be noted that because of the declining growth of the continent’s economy, other European countries will likely limit their negative reactions to Washington’s moves. Many European leaders agree with Trump about the strengthening of the German economy and many feel quite strongly that that has taken place at the expense of the rest of Europe. Indeed, the German economy has benefited greatly from the creation of the eurozone, inside of which Berlin is using the same currency as other countries that lag far behind Germany in economic development.

Donald Trump is not the first American president to express concern over either Germany’s excessively lucrative (for the Germans) commerce and trade surplus or the austerity measures Berlin has pushed upon the entire continent. Barack Obama also sparred with Angela Merkel, insisting that Germany stimulate its own consumer demand and increase imports from other European countries, rather than merely beefing up its own export industry while ignoring its neighbors.

Given the current environment and based on the results of the study, analysts from the IMK are urging the chancellor to increase spending in order to strengthen Germany’s domestic economy, rather than continuing to build up its unsustainable export sectors.

“There’d be two positive repercussions if we strengthened domestic demand in Germany and Europe,” declared Gustav Horn. “Firstly, growth would react less to turmoil on global export markets. Secondly, this would lead to a lower German trade surplus — thus taking the wind out of Trump’s sails.”

However, in addition to the US president’s protectionist aspirations, Washington has revealed its serious commitment to toughening up its anti-Russia sanctions policy. The damage to German industry could amount to hundreds of millions of euros. The carmakers Volkswagen and Daimler, as well as Siemens, will once again take the hardest hit. But apparently Angela Merkel has her own plan for how to escape this bind. The German government understands its responsibility to its business community, which has itself always urged investment in Russia. For this reason Berlin will attempt to stand up for the interests of its own homegrown firms. But until some constructive agreements are reached in Washington, even the smaller, mid-sized businesses in Germany are going to be feeling insecure.

There was some good and bad news last week. The good news was that William Browder, a London-based investor and dedicated foe of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin was arrested by the Spanish police on Wednesday. The bad news is that even though Russia has on six occasions requested Browder’s arrest through Interpol for tax fraud, the Spanish national police determined that Browder had been detained in error because the international warrant was no longer valid and released him.

Interpol, an organization of 190 countries cannot legally enforce any action of a “political character.” This can make it difficult to obtain red notices such as those being sought by Russia on Browder, which are the equivalent of international arrest warrants.

One might reasonably ask why there is a crisis in US-Russia relations at all since Washington and Moscow have much more in common than not, to include confronting international terrorism, stabilizing Syria and other parts of the world that are in turmoil, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In spite of all that, the U.S. and Russia are currently locked in a tit-for-tat unfriendly relationship somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War and it is only getting worse as self-appointed “experts” including Browder continue to prowl the fringes of policy making. Browder was in Spain to testify in a case against several Russian companies.

That William Browder might be regarded as controversial is somewhat of an understatement. Many who regard him as a crook serving as a catalyst for the bad policies relating to the U.S.-Russia relationship would like to see him in jail. Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert Parry both think that Browder single-handedly deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War.

William Browder, the grandson of Earl Browder, former head of the American Communist Party, is a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities trading. One of many Jewish profiteers who descended on Russia, his current role is symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about overseas developments as he appears before Congress frequently and is the source of much of the “testimony” contributing to the current bad international climate. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the fact that he has considerable interest in cultivating a certain outcome favorable to himself. Also ignored is his renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British citizen.

Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. The Act has sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.

Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as “Putin’s enemy #1,” portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading “lawyer” who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail.

Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court has supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December 2013 that Browder had deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.

William Browder has also been regularly in the news in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16, 2017 Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. Browder has become such an essential asset in the media story about “evil” Russia that he has become in a certain sense bullet proof in spite of his own personal very questionable history.

Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly ran away, literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.

Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen operating in what was a wild west business environment. My question is, “Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the vitally important US-Russia relationship?” The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir reports that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major force behind the Magnitsky Act.

Cardin and others in Congress have made Russia the bete noir of American politics, finding it convenient to scapegoat Moscow for the failure of the United States to put together a coherent and functioning foreign policy. Bill Browder is an essential component in that effort. Perhaps someone should ask him how he became a billionaire in a corrupt Russia going through political crisis and democratization in the 1990s. It would be interesting to learn what he has to say in his defense.

*

This article was originally published on American Herald Tribune.

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.

Over the past year, the Washington Post editorial board has routinely ignored the US’s involvement in the siege of Yemen—a bombing and starvation campaign that has killed over 15,000 civilians and left roughly a million with cholera. As FAIR noted last November (11/20/17), the Washington Post ran a major editorial (11/8/17) and an explainer (11/19/17) detailing the carnage in Yemen without once mentioning the US’s role in the conflict—instead pinning it on the seemingly rogue Saudis and the dastardly Iranians.

This was in addition to an op-ed that summer by editorial page editor Jackson Diehl (6/26/17), which not only ignored the US’s support of Saudi bombing but actually spun the US as the savior of Yemenis, holding up Saudi Arabia’s biggest backer in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, as a champion of human rights.

In recent months, however, the Post has charted a new course: vaguely acknowledging Washington’s role in the bloody siege, but insisting that the US should remain involved in the bombing of Yemen for the sake of humanitarianism.

Washington Post (3/24/18) says that the Saudi war on Yemen “has helped create the world’s most dire humanitarian crisis”–but argues for continued participation in that war.

In two recent editorials, “Can Congress Push the Saudi Prince Toward an Exit From Yemen?” (3/24/18) and “The World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis Could Get Even Worse” (5/28/18), the Washington Post board has cooked up a new, tortured position that the US should not stop supporting the Saudis––a move 30-year CIA veteran and Brookings fellow Bruce Riedel argued in 2016 would “end the war overnight”—but mildly chide the Saudis into committing slightly fewer war crimes while moving towards some vague exit strategy.

In the March editorial, the Post insisted “the United States…should use its leverage to stop this reckless venture,” and that Trump “condition further American military aid on humanitarian relief measures.” A step in the right direction, right? Quite the opposite. When one reads closer, it’s clear that while the Post wanted Trump to moderately roll back the most egregious war crimes, it still lobbied against the Lee/Sanders bill that would have actually ended the war.

Monday’s editorial took this faux-humanitarian half-measure one step further with this bit of revisionist history:

Both the Obama and Trump administrations have offered limited support to the Saudi coalition, while trying to restrain reckless bombing and the exacerbation of the humanitarian crisis.

The idea that Obama and Trump offered the Saudis “limited” support is a glaring lie. The US’s support—from logistical support, to refueling, to selling $110 billion in arms, to political cover at the UN, to literally choosing targets on a map—has been crucial to carrying out the three-and-a-half-year campaign. Again, according to one of the most white-bread, establishment commentators, US support isn’t ancillary, it’s essential. Without it, there is no bombing campaign.

Obama and Trump “have offered limited support” to the Saudi-led war on Yemen, says the Washington Post (5/28/18)–and by “limited,” they mean “$110 billion worth.”

The problem is the Washington Post is charged with a contradictory task: to act as a Very Concerned champion of human rights while propping up the core tenets of America’s imperial foreign policy. It’s an extremely difficult sleight-of-hand when the US is backing a bombing campaign targeting some of the poorest people on Earth, so their support of this slaughter is actually spun as an attempt to rein it in. The US is going to bring down the system from the inside!

The most logical way the US can stop the slaughter of Yemen is to stop engaging it in it. But to the Washington Post, this runs against the US policy of bombing and/or sanctioning anything that has the most remote connection to Iran, so this simple course is just not on the table. Instead, the Post’s propaganda objective—after years of simply ignoring the US role altogether—is to paint its participation in war crimes as a way of preventing slightly worse war crimes; a good cop to Saudi’s bad cop. This permits business as usual while maintaining the pretense the US cares about human rights—in other words, the Post’s basic ideological purpose.

*

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

In a Washington, D.C. courtroom this past Tuesday, Voices’ Kathy Kelly and her fellow activist Richard Ochs accepted guilty pleas for their part in a January 2018 action at the D.C. office of House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer.  They had been protesting the devastating, ongoing three-year war on Yemen being waged with intense U.S. support by the U.S.’ client dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, in coalition with regional allies.  We present Kathy’s and Richard’s sentencing statements below, followed by an account of the initial arrest.

(Kathy asked that we hyperlink this American Conservative op-ed by Daniel Larison, decrying the Saudi coalition’s long-dreaded and apparently imminent bombardment of Yemen’s vital port of Hodeidah, an attack which (if not prevented) promises to throttle most of the humanitarian aid now reaching that famine- and epidemic-stricken country.  Bipartisan opposition to the Yemen war is shown to have been increasing by several nearly-successful U.S. Congressional votes, including the one which prompted Kathy’s and her fellow activists’ January action).

Kathy Kelly

“On January 11, 2018, I was part of a delegation requesting Representative Steny Hoyer, the minority whip in the U.S. Congress, to help legislate an immediate end to U.S. participation in a Saudi-led coalition’s war against Yemen. The U.S. has sold cluster bombs, laser guided missiles, littoral combat ships, and other weapons to the Saudi-led coalition. U.S. jets refuel Saudi and Emirati warplanes in mid-air during bombing sorties. The paralyzing blockade and devastating airstrikes exacerbate suffering in Yemen, where Severe Acute Malnutrition afflicts 400,000 children. In January, UN officials said 8 million Yemenis faced starvation; Suspected cholera cases had reached one million.

“Yemeni children facing death by starvation and preventable disease pose no threat to U.S. people.  The food and clean water they hunger and thirst for could reach them, but not if elites continue to blockade Yemen’s ports, bomb roadways, destroy sewage and sanitation systems, attack fishermen and farmers, and use starvation and disease as tools of war.

“Children in Yemen can’t speak to Representative Hoyer. The urgency of their plight requires those who can approach him to speak up visibly and clearly. Time is running out for the children of Yemen. I wished to communicate the urgency of this issue to Representative Steny Hoyer.”

Richard Ochs

“I concur completely with the statement by Kathy Kelly.

“Because constituents of Steny Hoyer were unable to obtain an appointment with Hoyer’s staff despite trying 8 times over two months last year, I volunteered to hand-deliver a letter signed by 10 constituents to Hoyer’s D.C. office.

“Two of us delivered that letter on December 15, and asked to speak to a staff person, but were refused. We were also refused a name, phone number and business card of a staff person. None of the 10 constituents who signed the hand-delivered letter received a reply from Hoyer’s office to this day, 5 months later.

“So when I visited Hoyer’s office with co-defendants one month after I delivered that ignored letter, I was prepared to stay in that office until we received a guarantee of an appointment. Not receiving such, I felt I was within my rights to assemble for a redress of grievances for as long as it took.”

Kathy and Richard were sentenced to time served, freeing Kathy for upcoming actions supporting the Kings Bay Plowshares in advance of their own trial, and delegation work with the Afghan Peace Volunteers. Five of Kathy’s fellow Hoyer office arrestees will go to trial this fall, with court dates set for Oct 2 and 3.

***

Voices Archive: Arrests at Rep. Hoyer’s office in protest on behalf of Yemen War legislation – January 2018

Seven activists, including Voices’ Kathy Kelly, were arrested Jan 11^th for refusing to leave Rep. Steny Hoyer’s Washington DC office unless the Congressman (and House Minority Whip) committed to bring a vote on legislation to end the U.S.-Saudi war against Yemen.  Under intense bombardment and naval blockade, Yemen is poised to become the new century’s worst case of epidemic and famine; in the worst global famine year in the history of the UN.

The activists, convened by the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, voiced three main demands: that Rep. Hoyer speak out against Saudi war crimes, that he condemn any further U.S. arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition bombarding and blockading Yemen, and that he help bring to a vote (and ensure much-needed debate on) House Resolution 81 invoking war powers to end U.S. involvement in the Yemen war.  (They also urged Rep. Hoyer to vigorously, publicly, reject President Trump’s cruel dehumanization of the world’s most desperate places as “s***hole countries”).

Arrested in the action were Kathy, Janice Sevre-Duszynska, Phil Runkel, Malachy Kilbride, Joy First, Alice Sutter, and Richard Ochs. Voices’ Brian Terrell had been arrested in a previous action coordinated by Witness Against Torture in Washington that day.

Below please find our friend Justin Alexander’s analysis of comparable Senate legislation capable of bringing the issue far more squarely before the American public, and, in his analysis, of ending the war:

Senate War Powers resolution on ending unauthorised US support for the war in Yemen –
A bipartisan Senate resolution on Yemen will be introduced in mid-January and has a good chance of passing.

Situation in Yemen

• The Yemeni civil war, between Houthi rebels and the Saudi-backed government, is nearing its third anniversary.
• It is considered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis by the UN:
  • 11m people (39% of population) in “acute need”. 8m are at risk of famine. 2m are internally displaced.
  • The cholera epidemic has surpassed a million cases, the worst recorded globally in modern times. Other diseases are emerging, such as diphtheria, given the collapse of the health system and infrastructure.
• The Houthi rebels continue to control the highlands, where the majority of the population live, and the frontlines have only shifted slightly in the last six months.
• One area of advance by government forces is the west coast, moving towards Hodeida port, the source of most food imports into rebel territory. Disruption of the port would severely harm humanitarian aid (which was temporarily halted in Nov-Dec when Saudi Arabia intensified its blockade in response to Houthi missile firings).
• There is no clear end-game in sight and the Houthis could conceivably hold out for years, even if Hodeida fell.
• Even if the government were to eventually defeat the Houthis, fresh conflicts are likely given deep divisions within the anti-Houthi camp (such as South Yemen separatists), President Hadi’s unpopularity and the potential for jihadist groups (Al Qaeda, Islamic State) to fill vacuums, as they had done repeatedly.
• The longer the war continues, the harder it will be to stabalise and rebuild the country. A negotiated end to the war, based on a consensual federal structure, together with sustained regional/international aid offers the best hope for regional stability and humanitarian improvements.

Recent developments

• Despite commitments by Saudi Arabia to the US to improve targeting and reduce civilian casualties, there is little evidence of this happening. UN records show hundreds of civilian casualties a month from Saudi airstrikes, including 54 civilians killed in a market on 26 December.
• The war in Yemen was further complicated in December when the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, tried to shift sides from the Houthis to the Saudis, but was swiftly killed. This has created another vector of internal conflict (between Houthis and some Saleh loyalists).
• It has also reinforced the (misleading) Saudi narrative that the rebels are an Iranian-proxy which, together with Houthi missile firings at Riyadh, has further reduced prospects for peace negotiations.

Bipartisan resolution

• There is growing frustration with the war in Yemen in both parties and chambers.
  • 4 Republicans supported the June 2017 resolution to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
  • 3 Republicans cosponsored House Con. Res 81 (although the House leadership blocked its progress).
  • The National Defence Authorisation Act (14-Nov-17) included provisions requiring reports to Congress on efforts to reduce harm to civilians in Yemen and on the administration’s strategy in Yemen.
  • President Trump Tweeted on Dec 6th that Saudi Arabia should “completely allow food, fuel, water and medicine to reach the Yemeni people… immediately”.
• There are indications that even more Republicans will support (and fewer Democrats oppose) a more limited resolution on War Powers, rather than on arms sales. Some conservative groups (such as FreedomWorks and Campaign for Liberty), are supportive of the resolution.

Potential impact

• If US refuelling was removed, Saudi Arabia’s airstrike capacity would be severely reduced. This would reduce the direct civilian casualties (and US culpability in them) and could help shift the focus towards peace negotiations.
• Implementation of the War Powers Act would increase the accountability of the executive to Congress, something which could help reduce the risk of reckless US involvement in conflicts in the future.

*

All images in this article are from the authors.

Up and down the Rio Grande
A thousand footprints in the sand¹

The Pigs’ Lies

The Border Patrol first said that one of their pigs had come “under attack by multiple subjects using blunt objects.” They called Claudia and the people she was with “assailants” who used two-by-fours as weapons. It was all a lie.

A woman living nearby recorded the aftermath of Claudia Gómez’s murder. Marta Martinez can be heard yelling in Spanish,

“Why do you mistreat them? Why did you shoot the girl? You killed her. He killed the girl. She’s there. She’s dead. I saw you with the gun!”

Martinez said the Border Patrol captured two men after the shooting, and an agent said to them,

“This is what happens. You see? Be quiet; you have weapons.”

A couple of days later the Border Patrol dropped mention of “blunt objects,” and no longer claimed their agents had been assaulted. But they continue to uphold their actions, and have released no word of the whereabouts of the immigrants arrested that night.

A Death Zone

For decades, the U.S. has made its border with Mexico a death zone. Thousands of immigrants have died trying to cross the line that divides the two sides. Countless others have had their lives torn apart by imprisonment, brutality, and deportation. These abominations are not “collateral damage,” or the actions of “rogue agents.” They are the results of conscious policy enacted and enforced by the monsters who run the U.S. system of capitalism imperialism.

This is being taken to entirely new levels of slanderous insult and murderous assault by the Trump/Pence fascist regime. Vigils for Claudia Gómez were held in at least seven Texas cities, as well as Alexandria, Virginia, and Miami. Many more people should join in these protests, not only to call out this horrible murder but to demand a stop to all attacks on immigrants—and should join with Refuse Fascism to work to drive out the fascist Trump/Pence regime.

There is a moral and political challenge facing everyone. Are you okay with unarmed 20-year-old immigrant women being murdered by gun slinging pigs? Are you okay with a “commander-in-chief” who calls immigrants “animals” and has made relentless assaults on immigrants a battering ram for all-out fascism?

More fundamentally, the illegitimate system of capitalism-imperialism that gave rise to Trump/Pence can only be sustained by crushing literally hundreds of millions of lives. This system must be overthrown, through an actual revolution, when it is in deep crisis, and millions understand that its murderous violence is illegitimate, and are won to the need for revolution and the possibility of a radically different system and society. We are working and organizing right now to prepare the ground, the people, and the vanguard for that possibility.

*

Notes

1. From “Across the Borderline,” by Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, James Dickinson

2. See the article in Revolution’s  “American Crime” series, “Reagan’s Butcher Carries out Genocide in Guatemala.”

Many wonder if the United States is involved in the student protests of the past month in Nicaragua which attempted to destabilize the country. Western media writes nothing about the issue, while at the same time similar scenarios have played out in Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, Honduras, Bolivia and other countries in which the left has made progress. At this moment, three Nicaraguan students are touring Europe and Sweden in search of support for their campaign. At least one of the students represents an organization funded and created by the United States.

The student protests in Nicaragua are described in the Western media as legitimate protests by young Nicaraguans who have spontaneously united to fight the supposed dictatorship. Surely there are many young people who have joined the fight with these ideas. Surely many people here in Sweden have joined and support that struggle. But there is much that indicates that these are not just spontaneous protests. There are many indications that organizations led by the United States waited for the right moment to create chaos, and exacerbate the contradictions to destabilize the democratically elected government of Nicaragua.

Changing Society

One of the three students on tour in Sweden right now is Jessica Cisneros, active in issues of integration and youth participation in political processes. She is a member of the Movimiento Civico de Juventudes (MCJ). That organization is financed, created by and an integral part of the National Democratic Institute. The NDI is an organization that works to change society in other countries. The president of the NDI is Madeleine Albright, former U.S. secretary of state. The general secretary of the MCJ, Davis Jose Nicaragua Lopez, founder of the organization, is also the coordinator of the NDI in Nicaragua and active in a series of similar organizations in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Excerpt from the NDI website:

“The Civic Youth Movement (MCJ) has been part of an NDI project that began in 2015 with the aim of expanding youth leadership and political commitment by providing hands-on training in organizational techniques. Several of the group members are graduates of the Leadership and Political Conduct Certification (CLPM) program that the NDI has supported in conjunction with Nicaraguan universities and civil society organizations.”

Yerling Aguilera is from the Polytechnic University (UPOLI) of Managua and has specialized in research on the revolution and the feminist movement. She has also been an employee and consultant for IEEPP in Nicaragua, which works to strengthen the capacity of political, state and social actors for a better informed public through creative and innovative services. IEEPP has received support from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of US$224,162 between 2014 and 2017.

Madelaine Caracas participates in the national dialogue currently taking place in Nicaragua. She is also active in the feminist and environmental movement.

From 2015 on, the United States expanded its support to Nicaragua, especially through support for leadership courses and money for young people in universities, schools, NGOs and political parties. Organizations that work with feminist movements and women, human rights and the environment have been prioritized.

This from the NDI website:

“To ensure that the next generation of leaders will be equipped to govern in a democratic and transparent manner, since 2010 the NDI has partnered with Nicaraguan universities and civic organizations to lead a youth leadership program that has helped prepare more than 2,000 youth leaders, current and future, throughout the country. The NDI has also contributed to Nicaragua’s efforts to increase women’s political participation and initiatives to reduce discrimination against LGBT people, as well as shared best practices for monitoring electoral processes.”

Is foreign interference in democracy and elections good for Nicaragua, but unacceptable for the United States and Sweden?

Foreign Interference

It is also interesting to compare what happens in Nicaragua with what happens in other countries. The NDI also works in Venezuela, also with subversive tasks. The activity of the United States and the NDI in Latin America should be compared with the debate on the interference of powers in the electoral systems of the United States, Sweden or Europe. For example, would those countries accept that Russia form and support organizations that train political leaders in Sweden or the United States?

This is how the NDI describes its activities in Venezuela on its website:

“The NDI began working in Venezuela in the mid-1990s in response to requests to exchange international experiences on comparative approaches to democratic governance. After closing its offices in Venezuela in 2011, the NDI has continued – based on requests – offering material resources to democratic processes, including international approaches on electoral transparency, monitoring of political processes and civic and political organization, and the Institute promotes dialogue among Venezuelans and their civic and political peers and politicians at an international level on topics of mutual interest. “

Organizations from the United States work towards the development of democracy and foreign interference in Nicaragua. According to its website, the Instituto Democratico Nacional (NDI) has 2,000 young leaders in Nicaragua. The National Foundation for Democracy (NED) is another organization that, according to its own version of events, since the 1990s has been dedicated to doing the work that the CIA used to do in secret. It promotes the destabilization of other countries. The NED works with a number of other organizations, media, websites and NGOs in Nicaragua. Officially, its support for Nicaragua amounted to US$4.2 million between 2014 and 2017.

USAID officially works with medical and disaster relief, but the NDI and the NED support a number of organizations that work with issues concerning women, children, the environment and human rights. On their website, they write that they want to

“Promote democracy by training young and emerging leaders and giving them technical help so that they strengthen civil participation and improve local leadership.”

They do not say whose democracy they want to strengthen: whether it is the vision of democracy in the United States and the CIA, or the people of Nicaragua.

Previously, USAID worked in Bolivia but it was expelled in 2013 for carrying out destabilizing activities. In the same raid, a Danish organization was also expelled. That does not mean the organization necessarily engaged in illegal activities, but that it did work with an organization that received money from the United States. USAID also works in Venezuela, and also says there is work to strengthen “civil society.” Its budget in Venezuela in 2015 was US$4.25 million. Its partners in Venezuela are, among others, Freedom House and the NDI.

Creating Change

Who will create change in Nicaragua? And will it be violently or through elections? USAID, NDI and NED have extensive activities in Nicaragua, with thousands of activists trained to “change society,” and hundreds of NGOs, universities and political parties that receive money and material for these organizations. The United States participates in this process and its interests are to destabilize the democratically elected Sandinista government.

Believing that the United States is not involved in the riots in Nicaragua is naive. The situation in Nicaragua is serious and a dialogue for peace is necessary. Those responsible for the violence, the criminal fires, the riots, the destruction and the looting must answer for them, both on the side of the demonstrators, as well as on the critical elements, the political groups of young people and the responsible politicians. If, as the student leaders say, Daniel Ortega has ordered the police to shoot to kill, go ahead and have the president tried. And if there has been foreign interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua, those responsible for it have responded, both from activists in Nicaragua and from politicians in the United States. Many things can change for the better in Nicaragua, but it must be the work of the Nicaraguans themselves and not the money and agenda of the United States determining the changes.

Today, as Chevron executives and shareholders meet for their annual meeting, the company is under increasing pressure to pledge not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Earlier this month, a group of institutional investors totaling $2.52 trillion in assets sent a letter to major banks and oil and gas companies, including Chevron, urging urging them not to initiate any oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge. The letter cited economic and reputational risks, as well as threats to human rights and the environment.

“Chevron executives and shareholders must reject drilling in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain,” said Bernadette Demientieff, Executive Director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee. “This place, the calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd and the sacred place where life begins, cannot be destroyed. We will not allow our last untouched ecosystem to be stolen for greed. With courage, strength, and determination, we will defeat any attempt to drill in this sacred place. We have our ancestors standing with us, and although no one said this fight would be easy, we are survivors, we are strong, and we are warriors for the Arctic. The decisions that we make today will decide whether this sacred place will be preserved for future generations. Please stand with us by leaving it intact. Together we will defend the Arctic Refuge, the porcupine caribou herd, and the Gwich’in way of life.”

“Companies like Chevron are at a crossroads,” said Lena Moffitt, Senior Director of the Sierra Club’s Our Wild America Campaign. “They can side with a growing number of investors, tribes, environmental advocates, and climate justice groups by pledging to stay out of the Arctic Refuge and instead invest in the clean energy of the future, or they can risk losing their social license and trillions in funds in pursuit of the dirty fuels of the past.”

The judicial reform processes underway in Poland and Hungary are being derided by the EU as a “disease” that could “spread to the neighboring countries”, though they’re actually a liberating remedy from liberal totalitarianism and that’s why Brussels is so scared of them.

The head of the “European Network of Councils for the Judiciary” (ENCJ) fear mongered earlier this week about what he described as the “disease” of judicial reform in Poland and Hungary “spread[ing] to the neighboring countries” because it’s occurring “on a systemic level” that could “eventually end up in a dictatorship”. These two anchor countries of the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” (TSI) believe that the judiciary that their “revolutionary” leaderships inherited represents an unregulated power network run amok and which serves as an easy entrance point for external influence to penetrate their countries. That’s actually the point though, and it’s why the EU has such “strict” standards in maintaining the so-called “independence” of the very same judiciary through which it exerts its influence over their affairs, with Brussels depending on the courts as the final “firewall” for pushing back against all systemic reform efforts within those countries.

Reversing this state of affairs would undermine the entire German-led neo-imperial system’s institutional control over its vassal states and allow for the TSI’s hoped-for “decentralization” of the bloc back into a collection of sovereignty-focused nation-states instead of the tradition-less identity-blind blob of “junior” economic regionsthat Berlin wants it to become. Poland and Hungary are convinced that judicial reform is the only remedy for liberating their people from the liberal totalitarianism of the EU, but their EuroRealist moves are challenged by some of the EuroLiberal communist-era holdovers presiding over the courts, which is why such effort is being expended into changing this system of control and returning it from its globalist focus back to its originally intended national one. The EU mandated the “independence of the judiciary” as a prerequisite for membership into the bloc precisely because it wanted to ensure that it could indefinitely retain this instrument of influence.

EU countries, except for the bloc’s German leader and its French sidekick, aren’t supposed to be sovereign because that would negate the whole purpose for what the bloc has become, which is to serve as a captured consumer and labor market for those two Great Powers that functions as an economic complement to NATO’s military “integration” into the unipolar fold. That’s why there’s such a panicked reaction back in Brussels over what Warsaw and Budapest are carrying out right now because the Eurocrats fear that other TSI states in “New Europe” will follow their lead just like the ENCJ head is afraid that Romania is presently doing. Their meticulously built hedgemonic structure is being systematically dismantled before their very eyes, and the only thing that the EU can do is rely on its control over these countries’ purse strings via bloc-wide budgetary measures in a frail attempt to exert pressure where Color Revolution attempts have already failed.

There’s a real chance that a “domino effect” could take place all throughout the “Three Seas” region if Poland and Hungary are ultimately successful in their initiatives and prove through the demonstration effect that other countries could follow in their footsteps, with each reform attempt becoming comparatively easier after more liberated countries come to their aid in relieving EU pressure on them. This scenario scares the Eurocrats to no end, and that’s why they’ve taken to calling it a “disease” and implying that it must correspondingly be ‘contained’ and other nearby states ‘vaccinated’ against it, though ironically or not these very same institutional forces had more positive euphemisms to describe earlier regional systemic changes in lauding the “Spring of Nations” in Eastern Europe and the “Arab Spring” in the Mideast & North Africa. The only reason why this Populist Revolution of EuroRealism is described as a “disease” is because it’s actually the only remedy to the EU’s liberal totalitarianism, making it a “sickness” that many “Three Seas” societies are hoping that their governments contract.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

The US-Turkish tensions continue to grow over the so-called Manbij issue in northern Syria.

On May 30, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Davutoglu said that a roadmap for cooperation on Manbij had been reached by Ankara and Washington. He said that that the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) may even withdraw from Manbij before the end of this summer in the framework of the agreed roadmap.

However, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the YPG is their core, dined that it is planning to withdraw from Manbij.

On May 31, US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said that the US does not have any agreements with Turkey over Manbij. Nauert’s statement was especially strange because on May 25 the US Embassy in Turkey said that the sides had outlined the main contours of the road map.

These developments once again highlighted deep misunderstanding between Washington and Ankara over the situation in northern Syria.

At the same time, the SDF is facing problems with consolidating political control in the captured areas because of Arab-Kurdish tensions caused by the YPG dominance within the SDF.

On May 31, Aharar al-Sham clashed with the Northern Brigade, Ahrar al-Sharqiyah and the Sultan Murad Division in the town of Jarabulus in the Turkish-controlled part of Syria. At least 3 civilians and a few militants were killed in the clashes caused by a disagreement on money issues. On May 6 and May 26, inter-militant clashes were also reported in another Turkish-held town – al-Bab. These incidents demonstrate a poor security situation in the areas seized by Turkey and its proxies during Operation Euphrates Shield.

The Turkish-backed Second Coastal Division of the Free Syrian Army carried anti-tank guided missile strikes at two groups of Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers in the village of al-Ziyarah in northern Latakia. An officer of the SAA told SouthFront that one soldier was killed and three other were injured in the incident.

The number of casualties was low because militants used Fagot ATGMs with high-explosive anti-tank warheads, which are designed to be used against armoured targets.

Earlier this month, the Turkish military established an observation point in northern Latakia to monitor the de-escalation zone there. However, this does not stop militants from conducting hit and run attacks against the SAA.

*

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

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

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

The European peoples whose governments were paid to sell out the sovereignty of their nations to the EU are experiencing great difficulties in being permitted to govern themselves.

As the result of Italians’ frustration with the self-serving elite who have ruled Italy for decades, the recent democratic elections in Italy brought to power two anti-establishment political parties, Five-Star and Lega (League), that have solid majorities in both houses. However, the Italian president, an operative for the EU and US, attempted to appoint the prime minister independently of the election results, tried to himself appoint a “technocratic cabinet” that would ignore the democratic outcome, and succeeded in blocking the anti-establishment winners of the election from forming a government for three months.

EU official Gunther Oettinger said that it was “not acceptable” for Italians to vote for anti-establishment parties and threatened Italians with financial destabilization that would “teach them how to vote.”

Previously, in the wake of the international economic crisis brought on by the “banks too big to fail,” the Italians and the Greeks attempted to govern themselves democratically, but it was not permitted. The European Commission appointed Mario Monti, a banker, to be Italy’s prime minister. Monti, a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and a member of the Bilderberg Group, was appointed by the elite, not elected by the people. His cabinet did not include a single elected politician. (See my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism.)

Greece suffered the same fate of having an unelected banker appointed prime minister of Greece. Later when the Greeks succeeded in electing an anti-establishment government, the EU used economic threats and punishments to prevent the Greek government from governing.

In the US the Democratic Party, presstitute media, and the security agencies have made a strenuous effort to overturn the election of Donald Trump. They have failed to evict him from office, but they have turned him away from his goal of normalizing relations with Russia and withdrawing militarily from the Middle East. In effect, Trump has been forced into the position of being the agent for what he campaigned against.

In the West and among Western funded NGOs that operate in Russia and China, there is mindless talk about Russian and Chinese authoritarianism. Yet, democracy is far more alive in Russia and within the Chinese Communist Party that it is in the West.

Western democracy has been dying for a long time. In the course of forming the EU, populations in some countries voted down membership. The vote was not permitted to stand. After a period of propaganda to instill fear of being “excluded from Europe,” populatons were made to vote again. In this way they were strong-armed into sacrificing sovereignty to the EU.

It remains to be seen if the British vote to exit the EU will actually be implemented.

The Western elites despise democracy. They tolerate it only as a cover for their self-dealing when it can be manipulated to serve their interests. The Russians who want to join Western Democracy are clearly lacking in understanding.

Considering the seeds of crisis that the self-serving policies of the Western elites have sowed, the responses to the crises will be calls for and acceptance of authoritatrian rule. It is entirely possible that the democratic era is approaching its end.

*

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

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

A special commission report on foreign meddling in the 2018 presidential election has been unveiled in Russia’s Upper House. The document highlighted the main methods of the elaborate campaign, spearheaded by the US.

The report, presented on Wednesday in Russia’s Upper House (the Senate), was prepared by the Commission for State Sovereignty Protection in cooperation with leading experts and analysts. The publicly available document was presented by the head of the commission, Senator Andrey Klimov.

The document pinned the blame for the meddling in Russia’s election directly on Washington, linking the ongoing surge in hostile activities with the domestic political struggle in the US. Attempts to interfere in internal Russian affairs, however, are not new, as they have been going on since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US has been the “main violator of international law” since the founding of the United Nations, and has “interfered more than 120 times in the affairs of 60 countries on all continents.” Washington’s closest allies – the UK, Germany, France, NATO, and European countries – are also to blame, since they either participate directly or support US activities, according to the document.

“We tried to show… the areas in which the subversive work took place. We’ve named 10 such areas. We have concrete examples for all of them based on absolutely reliable facts. It’s not someone’s guess, it’s not ‘highly likely,’ it’s something we can prove anywhere, it is backed up by testimonies, documents and it is, by great margin, not disputed by the other side [the US],” Klimov said at a press conference, which followed the hearings in the Upper House.

The main purpose of the commission’s report, according to Klimov, is to show the public – both Russian, and international – the scale and systematic nature of the efforts to undermine Russia’s “electoral sovereignty.” The ultimate goal of these activities is to force changes of Russia’s political course, destroy its territorial and economic integrity, he said.

Direct election meddling & stirring dissent

The West has been trying to de-legitimize each and every election in Russia, routinely dismissing them as “undemocratic.” Ahead of the 2018 presidential election, both the US and EU condemned the barring of opposition figure Aleksey Navalny from the election. Ignoring his criminal conviction that bars Navalny from running for president, a US State Department representative called it a move to “suppress independent voices.”

The EU foreign office went even further and stated that barring the politician from the election due to “an alleged past conviction” casted “serious doubt on political pluralism in Russia and the prospect of democratic elections.” Such calls for “democracy” completely disregard Russian law and constitute a blatant attempt at election interference. While one may view Navalny’s conviction as they please, it is certainly not an “alleged” but a very real one, Klimov noted.

The election meddling also included wide-scale cyberattacks on government electronic resources, primarily the Central Election Commission. All in all, roughly one-third of such attacks are conducted from US territory, according to the report.

More discreet methods include stirring dissent by intensifying the activities of foreign-based Russian-language media outlets and “independent” bloggers. The use of modern technology and communication methods apparently yielded some results, since the latest protests, while much smaller than those of 2011-13, increasingly attracted younger and even underage activists into the streets.

Generous NGO funding

NGOs operating in Russia have enjoyed a steady flow of funding from abroad, which spiked following the failure to discredit the 2012 presidential election. In 2015, for instance, politically active NGOs received 80 billion rubles (around $1.3 billion) from the US alone, the report says.

Although Russia limited the activities of foreign NGOs within the country, requiring them to openly register as ‘foreign agents,’ the flow of funds did not stop. Various ‘grey’ schemes came into use, such as providing large sums in cash or transferring funds to private individuals. In the meantime, Russia-based subsidiaries of foreign NGOs flourished – their funding in 2017 almost doubled compared to 2016.

The total amount of NGO funding greatly surpasses the upper limit for a presidential candidate’s campaign in Russia. The scale is comparable to the entire budget for holding elections in the entire country, according to the report.

Apart from directly financing “civil activists” in Russia, the US and its allies spent money on more covert activities. Ahead of the election, several unsanctioned socio-political surveys were conducted in Russia, which were sponsored by foreign government structures – including the Pentagon – the report stated.

Targeting top Russian leadership, and Putin personally

A large part of the foreign efforts to interfere in domestic affairs targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin directly. This was observed as early as 2004, but spiked ahead of the 2012 election, according to the report. Then-US Vice President Joe Biden visited Russia and met with opposition figures, and told Putin that he should not run for a new term, since “Russia was tired” of him, the report says.

A similar pattern was seen in the following years, with Putin being portrayed as the only obstacle to the growth and prosperity of the Russian economy, and the man who “deprives the people of the democratic achievements of the 1980-90s.” Apart from smear campaigns, the report said some media also tried to demonize the Russian president in the eyes of the public by exaggerating certain problems to provoke Putin into making “unacceptable mistakes.”

Proposed countermeasures

The foreign activities outlined, however, failed to yield any tangible effect on the election, proving not their ineffectiveness, but the strength and stability of Russia’s socio-political system, the report concludes.

The commission prepared a set of recommendations on countermeasures against future foreign meddling, primarily by tightening up the laws. The proposed measures include prohibiting foreign-printed election campaign handouts, banning the participation of non-Russian citizens in the campaigns in any form, and barring dual-citizenship individuals from becoming trustees of candidates.

Other recommended measures include introducing a “special relationship” format with countries that impose sanctions or meddle in Russian affairs.

The recommended measures are not limited to restrictions. The report called for other countries and international organizations to become united in jointly opposing US meddling practices. On the home front, special attention will be given to education work, aimed primarily at young people, who are deliberately targeted with foreign propaganda, Senator Lyudmila Bokova told the press conference. The classified version of the report, according to Klimov, contains additional recommendations for countering foreign meddling.

Russia isn’t the only country to recognize the ways in which Western funded NGOs meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Hungary has recently begun taking up legislation to crack down on NGOs funded by George Soros and those which relocate migrants into and within Hungary, potentially altering its demographic makeup, religious traditions, social homogeneity, and political environment.

*

The Saudi Ambassador to Russia gave an exclusive interview to Sputnik where he revealed that the two Great Powers are working more closely together in Syria than had previously been acknowledged.

Up until this point, it was recognized that there were political contacts between the two sides over observing the Astana ceasefires and other technical topics, but this is the first time that it was publicly confirmed that Saudi Arabia solidly stands behind Russia’s role in promoting a political solution to the Hybrid War of Terror on Syria and is “in consultations and coordination sometimes with [it] regarding the ways to move this process ahead in the near future.” Furthermore, the Ambassador stressed the following:

“In the principal, our objectives are the same. We respect the independence, the unity and sovereignty of Syria. We want Syria for all Syrians on the equal basis regardless of their sector ethnicity or religious affiliation. We want Syria that is stable, secure and prosperous and we want Syria that is free from terrorist groups and sectarian militias and foreign troops.”

This strongly implies that some of the “consultations and coordination” between Russia and Saudi Arabia might have involved their “same objectives” of a “Syria that is free from…foreign troops”, like President Putin announced was his country’s assumption of the Arab Republic’s future while standing alongside President Assad during their Sochi Summit earlier this month. There are undoubtedly many, especially in the Alt-Media Community and under the influence over its prevailing dogma, who can’t believe that Russia would work so closely with the same Kingdom that’s largely responsible for most of Syria’s destruction, just like they can’t believe that it’s doing the same with “Israel” either, but those people are clearly unaware of or have purposely ignored the fast-moving an d full-spectrum Russian-Saudi rapprochement.

Moscow’s Rapprochement With Riyadh

To summarize what’s been happening between the two Great Powers over the past year or so, they’ve entered into the globally impactful OPEC+ deal with one another in stabilizing oil prices and Riyadh is even allowing Russian companies to bid to construct its 16 planned nuclear reactors, 15 more than Moscow has built in neighboring Iran. On top of that, the two parties are discussing exports of Russia’s S-400 anti-missile defense system and already agreed upon the sale of other weapons during the King’s visit to Moscow in October that include “Kornet-EM anti-tank missile systems, TOS-1A “Buratino” heavy flame systems, AGS-30 grenade launchers and Kalashnikov AK-103 assault rifles”. Unsurprisingly, the Ambassador confirmed in his interview that Russian state arms company Rostec has opened up an office in his country.

Taking the military dimensions of their relationship even further, he told Sputnik that

“(Saudi) officers [will] be trained and schooled in Russian military academies for the first time” and that “almost 200 Saudi military personnel (are) studying in various cities in Russia.”

Most observers could never have expected anything of the sort to happen, but this just speaks to the sincerity with which the Russian-Saudi rapprochement is developing in the sense that both sides trust one another enough to enter into long-term military training agreements of that sort. Moving beyond the energy and military aspects of their newfound partnership, Russia and Saudi Arabia are investing billions in one another’s economies, as was discussed in the interview, and relatedly, a representative of Russian Railways recently said that his company wants to participate in the construction of the Trans-Arabian Railway.

Explaining The Seemingly Unexplainable

Altogether, the multifaceted rapprochement between these two traditionally antagonistic Great Powers is proceeding quite smoothly, hence the naturalness with which it’s moved to Syria in seeing them engage in “consultations and coordination” with one another related to their shared political objectives, which most likely relates to the unofficial components of President Putin’s peace plan that specifically depends on Iran’s presumed “phased withdrawal” from the Arab Republic. To explain why all of this is happening in the first place and understand what’s behind Russia’s outreaches to Saudi Arabia, it’s necessary to remember that Moscow envisions its 21^st-century role as being the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia, to which end it’s pursuing a slew of non-traditional partnerships with countries whom it previously had problems with such as Turkey and Pakistan.

This grand strategy aims to provide Russia with a neutral but strategic stake in regional affairs all across the hemisphere that could then be leveraged to allow it to mediate between rival countries and reap the resultant economic benefits from both parties as a result. In this instance, Russia wants to “balance” Saudi Arabia and Iran in order to manage the American-exacerbated and Hybrid War-weaponized “Sunni-Shiite split” as a means of stabilizing the Greater Mideast, with the first step in this direction being Moscow’s “consultations and coordination” with Riyadh over President Putin’s peace plan for Syria. Specifically, while it can’t be known for sure, it can be strongly speculated that this involves some degree or another of talks over the future of what Russia recognizes as the “armed opposition” in southern Syria.

The Art Of “Balancing”

This terminology is being used because Russia doesn’t deal with terrorists but has conducted “de-escalation” agreements with a variety of what it considers to be “armed opposition” groups, including those abutting the “Israeli”-occupied Golan Heights. Saudi Arabia is known for its patronage of all sorts of militant actors in Syria so it can safely be assumed that may have had a say in the Russian-“Israeli” deal that Foreign Minister Lavrov publicly confirmed earlier this week in stipulating that “non-Syrian forces” (which is a euphemism for Iran and Hezbollah) won’t be used in the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) forthcoming liberation campaign in the area and “should [be withdrawn] as soon as possible”. Without the agreement of these groups’ two main “Israeli” and Saudi sponsors, the SAA might encounter such heavy resistance that its mission could fail.

It’s an open secret that Saudi Arabia and “Israel” are not only allies with one another, but consecrated this relationship through coordinating the Hybrid War of Terror on Syria, so it makes sense that Russia would seek to “de-escalate” the conflict right at its source by engaging in a series of “compromises” with these two. In exchange for Russia passively facilitating countless “Israeli” strikes against Iranian and Hezbollah positions in the Arab Republic, as well as recently agreeing that neither of those two ground forces should come anywhere near the frontier with the occupied Golan Heights, “Israeli” and Saudi Arabia will implicitly agree to de-facto “recognize” President Assad and downscale their destabilizing activities against his country, which is similar in a sense to the rumored deal that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman purportedly tried to strike with Damascus.

Concluding Thoughts

Looking at the bigger picture, Russia’s “consultations and coordination” with Saudi Arabia in Syria are the latest step in the two sides’ fast-moving and full-spectrum rapprochement with one another and are designed to advance President Putin’s peace plan by managing the reciprocal “withdrawal” (or at the very least, “secretly promised downscaling”) of Riyadh-backed “armed opposition” forces from areas where its Iranian rival also agrees to leave. This sensitive quid pro quo could never be agreed to by either Great Power directly but required the “balancing” prowess of Russia as the geopolitical broker between them in order to pull it off. Through a series of very delicate moves that would undoubtedly be denied by both Mideast heavyweights if they were ever pressed to comment upon them in public, Moscow is therefore bringing peace to the embattled Arab Republic through its policy of mediating “mutual compromises” between them while simultaneously strengthening its strategic relations with the Wahhabi Kingdom as a result.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

The father of modern public relations and spin, Edward Bernays was a cold, cynical manipulator of mass perception. He knew that by shaping people’s desires in a certain way, governments and corporations could sell just about any notion to the masses and manipulate them at will. Whether it was whipping up fear about the bogeyman of communism or selling the ‘American Dream’ of happiness through consuming goods, Bernays and the public relations/advertising industry, which took its cue from him, did exactly that.

Bernays was an expert in stage managing events to capture the popular imagination. Among his various accomplishments was to get women hooked on cigarettes by associating feminism and fashion with smoking. Calling cigarettes ‘torches of freedom’, he was instrumental in convincing women that cigarettes were trendy and that smoking symbolised emancipation. From getting people to change their diets to putting fluoride in drinking water, corporations knew who to turn to when they wanted to sell their dubious products.

Thanks in large part to Bernays, politicians, the corporate media and the system’s opinion leaders learned to appeal to primitive impulses, such as fear, sex and narcissism, that have little bearing on issues beyond the narrow self-interests of a consumer society. The whole point of such a society is to distract people from the reality of the wider world and train them to desire and want new things that they don’t really need – or for that matter even want – while stripping them of their ability to be self-reliant and independent.

The US government quickly learned that angels and demons could be manufactured from thin air and, from Guatemala and Congo to Vietnam, that wars and destabilisations could be built on packs of lies – lies about evil-doers about to kick down the door, lies about the impending misery they would inflict and lies about the government delivering the world from impending doom.

The 2002 BBC documentary series ‘The Century of the Self’ describes how Bernays’s propagandised on behalf of the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Brands International) and the US government to help overthrow the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Arbenz wanted to nationalise the company’s lands but Bernays successfully helped brand Arbenz as a communist with links to the USSR, which had no basis in reality. This set the stage for public support for a US-backed violent overthrow of Arbenz.

Whether it has involved Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine or Libya, Bernay’s tactics of deception have been further developed to keep the masses docile in order to sell imperialism under the lie of a war on terror, humanitarian intervention or exporting freedom, while enriching corporate interests in the process.

Consumer capitalism and imperialism

Millions are now locked into the pursuit of the Bernay’s model of consumerism. They are locked into addiction. Addicted to the pursuit of acquisition, of hedonism, of self-gratification. Addicted to the belief that there is an actual point to it all.

In the US Declaration of Independence, there is the phrase “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Freedom and happiness (or the pursuit of it) is central but was subverted by the likes of Bernays. With his knowledge of psycho-analysis (Sigmund Freud was his uncle), Bernays knew it was relatively easy to manipulate desires and get people hooked on consuming.

This great ‘American Dream’ of consumerism was built on craving and propaganda. And it is maintained by stripping the environment bare, by the unsustainable raping of nature to fuel profits, and is underpinned by perpetual war to grab resources.

As a result of such war, the US military-industrial complex is now responsible for a body count of 20 million dead and counting since 1945, people killed by US-backed wars and death squads, covert ops and destabilisations. All glossed over by countless Hollywood icons, commentators and politicians under the banner of championing freedom and democracy.

Today’s globalised system of capitalism exists to facilitate the desires of around just 6,000 to 7,000 people: the extremely wealthy of the world who are setting the globalisation and war agendas at the G8, G20, NATO, the World Bank and the WTO. They are from the highest levels of finance capital and transnational corporations.

These billionaires (a transnational capitalist class) dictate global economic policies through their high-level think tank and lobbying networks and decide on who lives and who dies and which wars are fought and inflicted on which people.

They are called ‘wealth creators’. ‘High flyers’ who have stolen ordinary people’s wealth, who have stashed it away in tax havens, who have bankrupted economies because of their reckless gambling and greed and who have imposed a form of globalisation that results in devastating destruction and war for those who attempt to remain independent from them or structurally adjusted violence via privatisation and economic neo-liberalism for millions in countries that have acquiesced.

Little wonder then that attempts to redress the balance have been brutally suppressed over the decades. From democratic leftist organisations or governments pursuing a socialist alternative or just displaying independent tendencies, this class has used intelligence agencies, front groups, threats, co-opted leaders or military might to attempt to subvert or annihilate any threat to its global hegemony.

From El Salvador and Chile to Egypt  and India’s tribal belt, ordinary folk across the world have been subjected to policies that have resulted in oppression, poverty and conflict. But this is all passed off by politicians and the corrupt mainstream media as the way things must be. And anyone who stands up to this lie is ridiculed or much worse to prevent the truth from emerging. And that truth is that many of us know what ‘happiness’ really is and the type of society necessary to achieve it – based on common ownership of natural assets (the commons), self-reliance, localisation, economic democracy and equality – and that the immensely wealthy people who stand in its way do all things necessary to prevent us from having it.

Yet it is ordinary men (and women) who sign up to join the military and support this system on behalf of these immensely wealthy people. In part thanks to Bernays, such people have however been adept in manipulating the masses to rally around flag and nation, evoking an emotive misplaced sense of patriotism to pursue their militarism or justify their exploitation.

In his book ‘A People’s History of England’, AL Morton documented how ordinary people, over many hundreds of years, set out to challenge these rulers and often paid with their lives. Nothing ever came for free and ordinary working people fought tooth and nail for any rights that they managed to obtain.

Such a travesty then that today ordinary people in the richer countries are denied decent livelihoods because jobs have been sold to the lowest bidder in places such as China, a de facto colonial outpost for the US empire with its ready supply of cheap labour.

With workers’ wages having been depressed, consumer demand thus propped up by debt, how convenient that the lie of ‘austerity’ is being used as a battering ram to finish off what the likes of Reagan and Thatcher did in the 80s with their pro-big business, pro-privatisation, anti-union, anti-welfare policies.

And we are supposed to thank ‘them’ for this and vote for ‘their’ politicians and support their wars. Ordinary young men (and women) are encouraged to sign up – the grandchildren of the cannon-fodder ‘heroes’ sacrificed en masse on the blood-soaked battlefields of countless other wars that have gone before can now join up to fight again. For what, a land fit for heroes? Or austerity, food banks, child poverty, powerlessness, more imperialism and propping up the US dollar. For whom? Monsanto, Occidental Petroleum, BP, JP Morgan, Boeing and the rest.

The US economy has been hollowed out. Much of manufacturing has been shipped abroad. For those who benefited, US workers can go to hell in a handbasket as long as profits keep rolling in. It’s the ability to maximise profit by shifting capital around the world that matters to them, whether on the back of distorted free trade agreements which open the gates for plunder or through coercion and militarism which merely tear them down.

Bernay’s was a sophisticated operator in his time. But in terms of being able to manipulate the public and keep them onside, docile, hooked and oblivious to what is really happening, things have certainly moved on.

Today, there are no doubt hundreds of firms like Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), which has conducted ‘behavioural change’ programmes in over 60 countries with clients having included the British Military of Defence, the US State Department and NATO. The use of the media to fool the public appears to be one of SCL’s key selling points.

And then there is APCO Worldwide, also politically well-connected and, as Shelley Kasli puts it, well-versed in “beating the war drum” and other fine pursuits such as facilitating the plunder of Iraqi wealth.

Whether it concerns the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings or the rest of the high-level think tanks – which determine policies for their politicians to sell to the public – or the various powerful corporate lobby groups, what they all have in common is that they are all involved in orchestrating our future for their benefit.

But none of this must be exposed. If the propaganda is to remain effective, the public must remain comatose, emotionally malleable, strung out on consumerism and endlessly subjected to an echo chamber of empty slogans about patriotism, the bogeyman at the door and freedom and democracy.

The system must promote a mass mindset that is immune to the lies because the alternative is rational analysis and emancipatory change.

*

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

More than 9,200 local volunteers from the Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus have joined the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and several pro-government groups since the liberation of the area on April 14, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported on May 30.

Under the reconciliation agreement reached in the area, 18-42 y.o. men got a six-month period to settle their legal status and join the SAA if they have not completed their mandatory service.

On May 9, the number of locals joined government forces was about 4,000 according to the Syrian pro-opposition news outlet Damascus Voice.

The US is allegedly considering to abandon the al-Tanaf base near the Syrian-Iraqi border under a deal with Russia, which will also force Iranian-backed forces and Hezbollah to withdraw away from the border with Jordan and from the contact line with Israel, the Newsweek magazine reported on May 30. Earlier, similar rumors were fueled by Saudi and Israeli media.

On May 30, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a statement on the situation in southern Syria. He said that all non-Syrian forces must withdraw from the de-escalation zone, which was established by the US, Russia and Jordan in July of 2017. Some sources linked this statement with the aforementioned rumors.

Most likely, the situation can become more clear after this week visit of Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and other Israeli officials to Moscow or after the start of a military operation in southern Syria by the SAA.

ISIS mobile units carried out new attacks on government forces positions in eastern Syria engaging them near the T3 pumping station and the village of Humaymah. However, the both attacks were repelled.

The ISIS activity in eastern Syria is one of the reasons behind the SAA’s efforts to solve the Daraa militants issue as soon as possible. Then, government troops will be able to deal with the remaining ISIS terrorists in the Homs desert.

*

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,

From the day he announced his candidacy for president of the United States – with his talk of Mexican rapists illegally crossing the border – it has been clear that Mr. Trump has no regard for truth, evidence, or any of the norms that make for honest, intelligent inquiry and debate.

Since Trump took office we have witnessed a president who is by any measure addicted to lying. According to the Washington Post, Donald Trump makes statements which are either untrue or misleading, on average, over six times each and every day. No president in modern history has displayed such contempt for the epistemic norms that are the foundation of civil discourse and a vibrant democracy – and all the while congress looks on inept and indeed complicit with this travesty.

Mr. Trump is the quintessential embodiment of the ‘post-truth’ era, and his actions as president reveal the high cost of such brazen dishonesty and willful disregard of reality; illustrated by his denial of anthropogenic climate change (a fact affirmed by virtually all climate scientists) and withdrawal from the Paris climate accord; his refusal to acknowledge the pressing need for, at a minimum, common sense gun laws in stemming the growing tide of gun-related violence; his persistent attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice, as well as outright disdain for the rule of law, which is unable to function properly without a healthy respect for things like objective reality, truth and justification; his penchant for conspiracy theories and utterly bogus claims, like the one that the Obama administration had his phones tapped.

But we cannot lay all the blame at the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We may indeed be living in the era of ‘post-truth’ – but for that, Trump himself is not solely responsible. Robust notions of truth, reality and objective inquiry have long been under assault, both in the culture at large, as well as in the hallowed halls of academia. Trump cleverly exploited this skepticism, a crisis of confidence, to which liberalism undoubtedly contributed.

The philosopher Hegel once wrote,

“Truth is a noble word and the thing is nobler still.”

It is fair to say that philosophers have long since abandoned the high estimation he expressed. The American neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty may serve as a case in point. He claimed that there are only two senses of true: a) what you can defend against all conversational objections, and b) correspondence with things-in-themselves (some mind-independent reality). Since, according to Rorty, there is no such a thing as ‘the way the world is’ we are left with the first option: truth is reduced to a conversational remnant. Of course, Rorty’s dichotomy was far from exhaustive – but putting that aside, the problem with his account of truth is that while there may sometimes be objections which really cannot be overcome, there are also objections which can be, but are not due to the limitations on the part of the participants.

If you go as far as Rorty in giving up on the notion of truth, a reasonable appreciation of science is also undermined. What we are in fact seeing today is the depreciation of reason and the devaluation of truth – a dwindling confidence in the mind as an instrument or faculty for arriving at knowledge, or true justified belief.

Trumpism is a travesty of reason – and its tragic consequence is the sad tale that continues unfolding to the ongoing horror of thinking peoples the world over. It is the tragedy of watching the Presidency of the United States devolve into a hollow megalomania, a form of mindless entertainment to be consumed by the most jingoistic and least informed among us. The tragedy of Trumpism is nothing less than a moral calamity, a breakdown of social values, a rejection of truth and justice for the sake of tribalism (where a belief is “true” if it satisfies the standards of the community to which we happen to belong).

Meanwhile, we have entirely lost sight of the value of truth as such; of why truth matters, and what makes truth something to be sought after, prized and protected. The most common defense of truth is the pragmatic one – namely, that truth works; that true beliefs are more likely to get the job done than those that are not true.

The pragmatic account of the value of truth is not wrong, but at the same time it is not enough. Truth is not valuable for solely instrumental or extrinsic reasons. Truth has intrinsic value as well. When we reduce the value of truth to instrumentality, it is a very short step to saying that we just want beliefs that work for us, regardless of whether they are true or not.

My claim is that truth is to be valued for its own sake as well. Truth is intrinsically valuable and having lost sight of that is one of the great follies that Trumpism helps to perpetuate.

To bring the inherent value of truth into focus we need to get beyond the view that truth is simply the correspondence between a belief and the way the world is – that is, truth is more than agreement between thought and thing. Truth is, first and foremost, the correspondence of a thing with itself – as when, for example, we speak of a true friend or a true work of art. Incidentally, this is what truth meant for Hegel, who made an important distinction between truth and correctness, which are often taken to be synonymous.

Truth, he said, “lies in the coincidence of the object with itself.”

It is precisely in this sense that we can begin to appreciate the inherent value of truth. Truth is valuable in itself because it is nothing less than a thing’s measuring up to itself, living up to what it is meant to be, and what it claims to be.

It is also in this sense that we can see how false this president is – how miserably he fails to live up to what his office demands, and what we as a country should demand of him. The tragedy of Trumpism is the unbearably sad prospect that this country may cease, not simply to be true to itself, to its most cherished ideals – for perhaps it never really was – but that it may cease striving to be so; that it may cynically give up on the struggle for truth; that we may indeed die through a kind of collective suicide, a suicide on the part of us which has maintained that, with all of our terrible sins, there is still a truth embodied in the United States.

If this country stands for anything it is collective self-government: “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Lincoln put it in what is now part of our secular scripture. But such government requires a citizenry that is able to distinguish fact from illusion, and demagoguery from democracy. It demands a citizenry that prizes truth and despises lies – especially when they come from high places.

“Truth is relative,” Rudolph Giuliani, now a member of Trump’s legal team, explained recently. “They [the Special Counsel] may have a different version of the truth than we do.”

Giuliani’s self-defeating position would be laughable were it not so dangerous: it is the position that allows the Alex Joneses of the world to operate with impunity; it is the position that allows the president to make a mockery of genuine inquiry.

The onslaught of post-truth is something we must resist with everything in our power, and every means at our disposal – in courts, and classrooms and public discourse. The era of Trumpism must come to an end lest, shamefully, we sink in shallow water.

*

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

At midnight on June 19, 1999, Nusret Ajdezi was woken up by a loud knocking on his door. Four armed people entered his home in a central Pristina neighbourhood and said that he and his family had until morning to flee the house or be killed.

“They were armed civilians. They said that they were [Kosovo Liberation Army] commanders. My wife, children and I did not sleep that night at all. We didn’t know where to go,” Ajdezi recalls.

The next morning, Ajdezi talked with his Roma fellow neighbours and found that they had experienced the same thing. Within three days, the majority of Pristina’s Roma inhabitants had fled to Serbia.

At the end of 2001, Ajdezi came back to his home but found that it had been turned into a brothel. Someone there told him that he had bought the house, and drove him away by hitting him with an iron bar.

Like Ajdezi, thousands of Albanians, Serbs, Roma and others whose homes have been unlawfully occupied have not been able to get them back since the war ended in Kosovo in June 1999.

This has had a negative impact on inter-ethnic relations in the country and made the return of refugees and people displaced by the war more difficult.

“Property issues, especially usurpations, have curbed the return of displaced persons,” Narasimha Rao, the head of the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR office in Kosovo, told BIRN.

For almost two decades now, Ajdezi has been living in a refugee camp in the northern Serbian town of Novi Sad, locked in a permanent battle with poverty and his ever-worsening health.

“I built that house with my work for 27 years at a butcher’s that was owned by an Albanian, and they snatched it only because I am Roma,” he said.

During his time in the refugee camp, he has appealed to UN Habitat, a United Nations agency dealing with human settlements, calling on it to address the home seizures and other property-related issues that emerged after the conflict.

Up to 2007, the former Kosovo Property Agency, which has now been renamed the Agency for Comparison and Verification of Property, AKKVP, had registered 42,749 seized properties in Kosovo.

Year by year, the number of seized properties has decreased because some of them have been sold, often under pressure, while others have been returned to their original owners.

“Currently there are 12,823 properties under AKKVP administration. Most of them are agricultural land, then business and residential properties,” said AKKVP spokesperson Arian Krasniqi.

The figure does not include forest land, which remains unregistered.

The majority of properties that were seized belong to Serbs and Roma who fled Kosovo just after the war in June 1999.

“96.84 per cent or 41,399 of usurped properties belonged to Serbs,” Krasniqi said.

Fake documents

Ajdezi’s (image on the right) legal battle to get back his property has been long and complicated.

“The usurper Isa Hamiti says that he bought the house from another person. But documents are fake,” he insisted.

According to court documents, the person who occupied Ajdezi’s house said he bought it from a person named Bekim Ramadani, who was not the owner, but was authorised by a woman called Sanije Deri. However, her name does not appear as the owner in the cadastral registry of properties in Kosovo.

At the time of the contract which said that she authorised the selling of the house, in the year 2000, she had already been dead for 30 years, according to the civil registry.

Meanwhile the seller, Bekim Ramadani from the southern Serbian town of Medvedja, is in prison in Serbia for other offences.

In 2016, the Kosovo government approved a national strategy on property rights. According to the strategy, property transactions like this which involve go-betweens raise concerns over human rights, because in a post-conflict environment, sometimes the properties are not sold willingly.

The court has not ruled yet on Ajdezi’s case, but his house now exists only in photographs and in its former inhabitants’ memories. A huge residential building has been erected where it once stood; the constructor compensated the seller of the house with two apartments.

Court rulings ignored

Image on the left: Ljubinko Todorovic.

Slavica Djordjevic never planned to leave Kosovo until the day that she, her husband and six of her neighbours were kidnapped by a group of armed men in the southern town of Prizren in June 1999.

They were rescued by a patrol of German soldiers from the NATO peacekeeping force, KFOR, which was deployed in Kosovo following the Western military alliance’s 78-day air campaign which resulted in the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.

While preparing to leave, Djordjevic saw her house, which was not yet fully built, seized by an Albanian neighbour.

“He continued construction where we left off. They used it for storage, as a shop and office space,” she told BIRN.

While she was moving from one refugee shelter to another in Serbia, a Prizren court ruled in 2011 that her property should be returned to her in the state in which she left it.

“But he did not want to obey the verdict,” Djordjevic explained. “To this day, the usurper of my property does not wish to return it. Instead, they threatened to kill us in the courtroom.”

In the end, the judge decided that she must pay 19,500 euros for the verdict to be implemented if she wants her property back.

When she complained to the Court of Appeals, the judges ruled again that the property should be returned. But then the Supreme Court also ruled that Djordjevic should pay 19,500 euros. Now she has filed a complaint to Kosovo’s Constitutional Court.

Now 66, Djordjevic (image on the right) said she cannot afford to pay for the restitution of her property.

“I am retired, my husband too. We are struggling to survive,” she said.

Kosovo Serbs find it particularly hard to get back property in villages in which the ethnic Albanian population were subjected to killings and gruesome massacres by Serbian forces.

Marko Vukotic left his house in the village of Lubeniq/Ljubenica in the Peje/Pec area, where in May 1999, Serbian forces killed more than 80 Albanian civilians. Two years later, Vukotic returned and sold the house. But he did not get his agricultural land back.

“I see that they [Albanians] are working the land, harvesting their fruit, and I can do nothing,” Vukotic told BIRN.

In 2016, the Peje/Pec court ruled that his property should be released. But the man who now uses the land, Asllan Zenelaj, insisted that it has always belonged to his family.

“This land was expropriated. Then during the Milosevic regime [in the 1990s] there were some discriminatory laws about Albanians’ properties. I am collecting documents which prove my right to the property,” Zenelaj told BIRN.

The ownership status of many properties that were traded between Serbs and Albanians in the 1990s remains unresolved in the cadastral register, further complicating the situation.

The Agency for Comparison and Verifiction of Property is responsible for restitution of property when it is illegally occupied or illegally occupied for a second time, as sometimes happens. But if it is illegally occupied for a third time, the Agency is legally powerless to intervene.

Kosovo Ombudsperson Hilmi Jashari, has requested legal changes which would make the Agency responsible for acting after every seizure.

“Some provisions of the law violate the property rights of displaced persons,” Jashari told BIRN.

He also said that the law is “in contradiction with UN rules for the restitution of property for displaced persons”, known as the Phinerio Principles.

Lawyer Ljubinko Todorovic, who served as Kosovo’s Deputy Ombudsperson from 2003 to 2006, is among those whose houses have been seized. He blames the former UN administration mission, UNMIK, for being incapable of stopping the seizures.

“It was the time when fear prevailed. The usurper of my apartment came to my office at the Ombudsperson’s HQ and told me that he will never vacate it,” Todorovic told BIRN.

In his current office in the central Kosovo town of Gracanica, Todorovic is dealing with a backlog of cases of property usurpations involving Serbs and Roma which are waiting for court verdicts. Each of the plaintiffs has been waiting for more than a decade for their problem to be dealt with.

‘No rule of law’

Agim Voca (image on the left) remembers how, one sunny October day in 1998, he left his apartment in Kosovo northern town of Zvecane/Zvecan, and moved to live with some relatives in the neighbouring town of Mitrovica.

He and his family did not take many things with them, believing that they would return soon. But the conflict erupted more quickly than he expected and other Albanians were also displaced from Zvecane/Zvecan. Some of them were never able to return home again.

Nineteen years later, Voca is still waiting for the day when he can go back. His apartment in central Zvecan/Zvecane was occupied by a Serb family, and Voca and his family now live in a Serb’s house in the southern part of the ethnically-divided town of Mitrovica.

“When the war ended, a new war started for me. I lost a job, I lost an apartment. I had taken refuge near my town. There was no place for Albanians beyond the bridge, nor for Serbs in this side,” he said, referring to Ibar bridge in Mitrovica which divides the town and has been the scene of several inter-ethnic clashes since the war.

Voca, now 65, used to work at Trepca, a huge mining complex which has never recovered since the war. As as consequence, he was unemployed when he reached retirement age.

As he was homeless for year while seeking the restitution of his property, the Kosovo Property Agency settled him in an apartment which belonged to a Serb whose family fled Mitrovica in June 1999.

“I was born and grew up in Zvecan/Zvecani, in a good neighbourly relationship with local Serbs. But the time came when everything was upended and now we live in each others’ usurped apartments,” he said.

His apartment is being occupied by a Serb family, whose house in the village of Runik in the Skenderaj/Srbica municipality was destroyed after the war.

Voca once met the Serb owner of the house in which he is living, Aca Milutinovic, who paid a visit with his wife to see their home, escorted by UN police. The place is now in a poor state and the roof is leaky.

“They saw their house destroyed over the years by different families who lived here. In that time, the walls have been covered with hate grafitti,” said Selvete Voca, Agim’s wife.

Over the years, the AKVVM has put some of the seized properties under its administration and is trying to oblige their occupiers to pay rent.

“In cases when users do not pay rent, we evict them,” the Agency spokesperson Krasniqi said.

But the obligation to pay rent often does not work in practice because the families who live in these properties are so poor.

Voca said he has never been paid rent from his apartment, nor paid anything for the house he lives in.

“Besides threats, I have never received anything. And nobody has asked me to pay rent for this house,” he explained.

Naim Osmani from Civil Rights Programme in Kosovo, which has defalt with property restitution problems, said that in most cases, owners hesitate to take legal action against unlawful occupiers because they know that they “cannot solve the problems” through the courts.

“We have seen the fear of those who ask for their property back through the courts. This is a reflection of the lack of rule of law,” he added.

Attempted arson

Image on the right: Marko Vucotic

Beshir Islami, head of the Appeals College of the Kosovo Supreme Court, a mechanism that deals with complaints to the Kosovo Commission for Property Claims, said resolving property issues remains a challenge.

“However, allegations that sides are taken based on ethnic motivations in resolving property issues have no basis,” Islami insisted.

The Kosovo prosecution has initiated 422 property usurpation cases. But properties are often illegally occupied several times, leaving the Agency powerless to intervene.

One home-owner became so infuriated with the situation that he decided to take retribution. Alush Alushi from Mitrovica, who lost two sons during the war, said that he tried to set his home in the Serb-dominated north of Mitrovica on fire twice. A Serb family has lived in the house since the end of the war.

Alushi’s attempt to torch his own house failed, however.

“I couldn’t set the fire from outside,” he told BIRN.

In 2017, he staged another radical intervention. Armed with a gun and two hand grenades, he went to a police station and threatened to “blow the house into the air” if authorities did not act.

“It was very hard for me when I imagined how I lost two sons during the war and the house after the war ended,” he said.

His property was eventually returned to him, but he said it had been damaged, and he plans to sell it because he says he would not feel safe living there anymore.

Slavica Djordjevic said that she feels that nothing can compensate her for what she has experienced during these years in which she has been forced to live so far from her home.

“It’s too much for one lifetime. There is no money, no means to give us back the 20 years of life that we have spent here in Novi Sad,” she said.

Many people fear that they could lose their properties because of the amount of time that has now passed, but judge Beshir Islami said this is not possible because “the legal right to immovable property has no statutory limitation”.

In 2011, under EU mediation, Kosovo and Serbia signed an agreement on the return of copies of scanned cadastral registries which were taken away by the Belgrade-run administration when it fled Kosovo in June 1999.

The agreement – which has still to be implemented – provides for the return of over 4.1 million copies of private property documents. It’s believed that they would clarify many of the property issues that have arisen since the war.

Meanwhile, Marko Vukotic and Agim Voca are still hoping that they will get their homes back again – although Aca Milutinovic and his wife died in Serbia recently without ever getting the satisfaction of having their house returned to them.

Ajdezi expects the property documents that are due to be returned from Belgrade to prove that his house really belongs to him, even though the building itself has been razed to the ground.

“I spent my entire life working to have a house. I don’t want to feel like a homeless person any more. I wouldn’t like to die in a shelter,” he said.

*

All images, except the featured, in this article are from BIRN.

As Israeli leaders and the Trump regime grotesquely celebrated the moving of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem on the 70th anniversary of Israel’s declaration of independence, May 14, just 40 miles away Israeli troops were massacring unarmed Palestinians trapped inside Gaza. At least 61 Palestinians were killed, and more than 2,700 wounded, over a thousand shot by snipers firing military grade ammunition against unarmed protestors who were demanding an end to their isolation and the right to return to their homeland.

There was a bitter historical irony in the juxtaposition of these events

Most of the two million residents of Gaza are refugees and their descendants (who also have refugee status), driven from other parts of Palestine in 1948. Altogether, more than 750,000 Palestinians were expelled in 1948-49 to make way for the creation of the Israeli state. Another 300,000 were driven out after the Six Day War in 1967. Today, there are seven million registered Palestinians refugees, many still living in 59 refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza. None have ever been allowed to return to their stolen homes, farms and shops, in blatant violation of their rights.

For many decades, Israeli leaders and their American apologists maintained the fiction that the Palestinians who left did so at the urging of their leaders. Even if that had been the case, it would have in no way invalidated their right of return, an inalienable right under international law.

But it was not the case. As has been irrefutably documented by numerous Israeli as well as Palestinian historians, mass ethnic cleansing was carried out by means of massacre and other forms of terror. It could not have accomplished otherwise.

The Israeli colonial state was not, of course, the only one that employed terror and massacre to subjugate the indigenous population. All of the colonizers utilized such tactics, including the United States, Britain, France, Belgium, Japan, Netherlands, Italy, etc., to establish their empires.

“Transfer” – Zionist leaders’ intention from the start

The leaders of the Zionist movement that manifested itself as the Israeli state in 1948 had often been quite open about their intention to conquer all of Palestine and to force the indigenous population out. Their code word for ethnic cleansing was “transfer.” In 1937, David Ben-Gurion, a reputed “moderate” in the Zionist leadership who would later become Israel’s first prime minister wrote:

“Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin…Jewish power which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out this transfer on a large scale.”

In 1940, another key Zionist leader, Josef Weiiz, director of the Jewish National Fund charged with acquiring as much land as possible, wrote:

“Among ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both people in this country . . . and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, to transfer them all, except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, a single tribe.”

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British colony of Palestine: 55% for a Jewish state, 44% for an Arab state, and 1% for an international zone. In true colonialist fashion, there was no consultation with the Palestinians before the vote. Widespread fighting broke out immediately.

A month after the vote, Ben-Gurion, said in a speech:

“In the area allocated to the Jewish state there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350, 000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish state. This fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a composition, there cannot event be absolute certainty that the control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority . . . There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.”

Ben-Gurion hailed ethnic cleansing

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine that began almost immediately after the fateful UN vote delighted Ben-Gurion. In a February 8, 1948 speech to the governing council of his Labor Party, he gloated:

“From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [an East Jerusalem neighborhood] … there are no Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been as Jewish as it is now. In many Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single Arab. I do not assume that this will change … What has happened in Jerusalem … is likely to happen in many parts of the country … in the six, eight to ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.”

But what so heartened Ben-Gurion in early 1948 was not yet reflected in most of the country. The much better armed and financed Zionist militias prevailed in most, though not all, battles. But in most areas, the objective of driving out the Palestinian population was not being achieved. Palestinian villagers would retreat during active combat, but only to nearby villages or towns, waiting for the fighting to stop so they could return to their homes and farms.

At the time, the majority of Palestinians were peasant farmers who could not leave their land and livestock for any extended period of time without disastrous consequences. The contention that they would have voluntarily abandoned their farms based on the call of some far-off “leader” is simply ludicrous.

By March 1, 1948, less than 5% of the Palestinian population had been driven out, which was viewed by the Zionist leaders as serious threat to their plan.

Two additional factors made this a crisis-in-the-making for Ben-Gurion and his cohorts. One was a shift in Washington. While the Truman administration had played a key role in ramming the partition plan through the UN, it was now evidencing second thoughts. The partition plan had not brought peace — just the opposite, and much of the anger in the Arab world and beyond was directed at the U.S.

The State Department was floating a proposal to scrap partition and replace it with a five-year trusteeship. The Zionist leaders rejected it outright, but were acutely conscious of the importance of maintaining support from the United States.

And, the approach of May 15, 1948, the date the British colonizers had set for withdrawing their troops from Palestine was fast approaching.

An Israeli soldier stops Palestinians in Nazareth, 1948, for traveling after the imposed curfew

Plan Dalet – terrorist violence on a mass scale

Confronted with what they viewed as multi-front crisis, Ben-Gurion and his commanders began to implement a new military doctrine under the name Plan Dalet, or Plan D. Under the plan, the official Zionist army, the Haganah, along with its supposed rival militias, Irgun and Lehi (Stern Gang), both of the latter self-proclaimed terrorist organizations, began attacking “quiet” Palestinian villages, those not involved in fighting.

The progressive Israeli historian Ilan Pappe asserts in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that Ben-Gurion actually viewed the “quiet” villages as a bigger problem than those that resisted, as the latter provided a pretext for carrying out harsh repression and removal.

Among the directives of Plan Dalet were:

“Mounting operations against enemy population centres located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

“Destruction of villages – setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris – especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

“Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

Plan Dalet escalated the level of violence directed against the Palestinian civilian population to an extreme. A typical operation carried out by Zionist military units would involve planting explosives around Palestinian houses in the middle of the night, drenching them with gasoline and then opening fire. The point was to terrorize and expel the population. Arbitrary executions became routine, particularly targeting men and boys simply deemed to be of “fighting age,” regardless of whether they were actually engaged in combat.

Deir Yassin massacre – a turning point

Deir Yassin, on the outskirts of Jerusalem was on of the “quiet” villages. On April 9, 1948, the Irgun led by Menachem Begin, wiped out nearly its entire population The Irgun blew up houses with the inhabitants inside, executed others in their homes. Many of the women in the village were raped before being killed. The Irgun paraded the few survivors in a truck through Jerusalem where they were jeered and spit on.

Deir Yassin raised Plan Dalet to a new level of brutality, The Jewish Agency, which a few weeks later would become the Israeli government, officially condemned the massacre but on the same day brought Irgun into the Joint Command with the Haganah, and Lehi, led by another future prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir.

The massacres in Deir Yassin, Tantura and other villages were widely publicized by the Zionists themselves, for maximum effect. Pappe has documented at least 29 additional massacres by Zionist forces between December 1947 and January 1949.

Twelve days after the Deir Yassin massacre, on April 21, 1948, the British commander in Haifa, a major city in the north with a mixed population, advised the Jewish Agency that he would immediately begin withdrawing his forces. He did not inform the Palestinians. The same day, Hagahah forces launched a major attack on the Palestinian neighborhoods of the city, rolling barrel bombs filled with gasoline and dynamite down narrow alleys in the heavily populated city while shelling the same areas with mortars.

Haganah army loudspeakers and sound cars broadcast “horror recordings” of shrieks and screams of Arab women, mixed with calls of, “flee for your lives, the Jews are using poison gas and nuclear weapons. By early May, only 4,000 Palestinians of 65,000 remained in Haifa.

Irgun commander Menachem Begin, provided most vivid description of how well the slaughter at Deir Yassin was instrumental in the expulsion of the Palestinians from Haifa and other cities, towns and villages. In his book The Revolt, Begin wrote:

“Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel [sic]. Kolonia village, which had previously repulsed every attack of the Haganah (the underground Jewish military organization that became the Israeli Army), was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. These two places overlooked the road and their fall, together with the capture of Kastel by the Haganah, made it possible to keep open the road to Jerusalem. In the rest of the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces … The legend of Deir Yassin helped us in particular in the saving of Tiberias and the conquest of Haifa … All the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter. The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting ‘Deir Yassin!’”

Three decades later, in an article for The American Zionist, Mordechai Nisan of the Truman Research Centre of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem expressed his concern about the failure to understand the major significance of terrorism in the struggle for Jewish sovereignty. He wrote:

“Without terror it is unlikely that Jewish independence would have been achieved when it was.”

*

(Much of the historical material in this article can be found in the book, Palestine, Israel and the U.S. Empire, by Richard Becker. PSL Publications, 2009)

This article was originally published on Liberation School. Richard Becker is a frequent Contributor to Global Research

Syria has long dominated international headlines while the big powers discuss the possibility of dividing it into smaller, more homogeneous states along ethnic or religious lines. The Democratic Republic of Congo is rarely if ever at the top of the Western headlines, but heads of state and so-called experts have long made similar proposals to carve out new, smaller, more homogeneous nations in Congo’s resource-rich eastern provinces. I spoke with Congolese scholar and activist Boniface Musavuli about the plans.

Ann Garrison: Boniface, can you summarize the history of proposals to divide up the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Boniface Musavuli: Attempts to break up the Congo began as soon as the country became independent in 1960. First there was the Katangese secession, from 1960 to 1963, led by Moïse Tshombe with the support of Belgium, the colonial power that Congo had just freed itself from, in name at least. Katanga is Congo’s most southeastern province, bordering Angola, Zambia, and Tanzania, which makes it easier to slice off, like the rest of the resource-rich eastern border provinces. Katanga is also Congo’s most mineral-rich province, and the Belgians had made it clear, before independence, that they did not intend to cede control of its wealth to the Congolese.

Another secession began in the southern part of Kasai Province, which borders Katanga. These secessions were defeated by UN forces and the Congolese army led by Lieutenant-General Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, who was then chief of staff of the armed forces.

In October 1996, Rwandan President Pasteur Bizimungu (image on the right) called for the organization of a new Berlin Conference to allow Rwanda to take possession of part of eastern Congo. Bizimungu was a Hutu figurehead concealing the minority Tutsi rule that General Paul Kagame had reestablished at the end of the 1990-1994 invasion, war, and genocide in Rwanda.

At the same time, US official and corporatist Walter Kansteiner began advocating ethnic Balkanization, including the creation of a homogeneous Tutsi state in eastern Congo.

AG: I’ve read about Kansteiner. He was Bill Clinton’s National Security Council Advisor for African Affairs, then he became Deputy Spokesman for Clinton’s National Security Council, and in 2002, he became George W. Bush’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. He’s been involved in mergers, acquisitions, and privatizations all over Africa, and he owns a commodity trading firm in Chicago that specializes in tropical products. He’s a member of the Corporate Council on Africa, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the African Development Foundation.

BM: Yes, that’s him. And he began advocating for the Balkanization of Congo along ethnic lines in October 1996.

AG: October 1996 was also the month when Uganda and Rwanda invaded the Congo, formed a coalition army with Laurent Désiré Kabila, and drove Congolese President Mobutu Sese Seko into exile seven months later.

BM: Yes, and then in 1998, during the Second Congo War, the DRC and its vast resources were divided into three main parts, even though there was no formal secession. One part was controlled by Congolese President Laurent-Désiré Kabila and his allies, another by Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his allies, and the third by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his allies. This de facto partition of the country ended in 2003 when the Sun City peace agreement was signed in South Africa.

Image below: Walter Kansteiner

AG: I read some of the press about the Sun City Agreement at the time. It was reported that Uganda had agreed to give the Congolese finance portfolio to Congo in exchange for the power to choose the president of Congo’s 500-member national assembly, and Rwanda got to choose the head of Congo’s 120-member Senate, but that these bargains were not spelled out in the agreement.

BM: Yes, but it’s important to note that Congolese President Laurent Kabila had been assassinated in 2001, and succeeded by Joseph Kabila, his adopted son, who became a partner in US and Rwandan Tutsi interests in Congo.

AG: WorldBiography.com reports that, “Only a week after he [Kabila] was sworn in as president, George Bush invited Kabila to visit Washington. Kabila accepted the invitation and went there to meet with Colin Powell and Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda.”

BM: Yes. So the 2003 Sun City Agreement was really an agreement between the Rwandan government in Kigali, the Ugandan government in Kampala, and the Rwandan government in Kinshasa, which was pretending to be Congolese. The agreement marked the next stage in a long period of veiled occupation that continues in Congo today.

By January 2009, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared publicly that Congo must share its space and wealth with Rwanda.

AG: What proposals are currently on the table, and who is proposing them?

BM: There are now several initiatives aimed at Balkanizing Congo, but the Congolese have always opposed them. That explains, for example, the defeat of M23, an armed Tutsi militia, in November 2013.

A petition was recently launched by individuals who claimed to be from the Hutu community in Congo, calling for the partition of North Kivu, one of Congo’s most resource-rich and population-dense provinces. North Kivu borders Rwanda, and Rwandan forces have never left the province despite the 2003 agreement that formally ended the Second Congo War. Instead they pretended to be Congolese and renamed themselves the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) and then the March 23 Movement (M23). North Kivu continued to be ravaged by their violence and looting of Congolese resources, including coltan, gold, diamonds, and timber.

This partition of North Kivu would weaken the inter-ethnic cohesion of the province, weaken its different territories, and cause massive population displacements. There are already more than 1.1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in North Kivu Province, nearly a quarter of the 4.5 million IDPs in the country. Partitioning the territories of North Kivu would facilitate their annexation to Rwanda, as envisioned by the Balkanizers back in 1996. The people behind this petition are in fact linked to Kagame and Kabila’s Tutsi expansionist regimes, which have always worked together to Balkanize eastern Congo. This explains the massive presence of Rwandan Tutsi officers in the ranks of the Congolese army.

However, the Rwandan military presence is not sufficient to achieve Balkanization. This also requires huge Rwandan populations on Congolese soil. Hence their massive arrival, particularly in North Kivu Province’s Beni Territory and Ituri Province. Some of these Rwandans commit massacres against the indigenous populations, which explains the hostility of the Congolese to their arrival.

AG: Is the plan to populate the territories that Rwanda would like to annex with Rwandans and then hold a referendum on whether the territories want to be part of Rwanda or Congo?

BM: Yes. Rwanda’s strategy has always been to use populations of Rwandan origin, or of Rwandan ancestry. By sending Rwandan populations to Congo and massacring native Congolese, Rwanda is trying to create a Rwandan majority in several provinces or territories of Congo. If they become a majority, these populations will be able to demand a referendum of self-determination and obtain the autonomy of the territories under their control. Then, after autonomy, these territories could be annexed to Rwanda.

However, it should be noted that a large part of the populations of Rwandan origin or ancestry, now established in Congo for several generations, oppose the Balkanization. These populations now consider themselves Congolese and refuse to collaborate in the Kagame regime’s expansionist ambitions. This is one of the main reasons why the Balkanization project is floundering.

AG: And are the Balkanizers, both here and there, trying to Balkanize North Kivu, Ituri, and maybe more of Congo’s resource-rich east along ethnic lines? The US has pursued a policy of ethnic and/or religious division since the breakup of Yugoslavia, then Iraq, South Sudan, and now Syria.

BM: Yes, and Walter Kansteiner spoke about the creation of an ethnically homogeneous Tutsi state in eastern Congo. It’s a terrifying idea because Tutsi do not even represent 5% of the total population of Kivu and are not a majority in any Congolese territory. The only way for them to have a homogeneous state is to slaughter 95% of the local population or drive them off their land. That explains in part the death of six million Congolese and the continuation of the massacres in eastern Congo.

But despite these unending massacres and millions of deaths, the Tutsi still remain a minority throughout the eastern Congo. They cannot create a homogeneous state in eastern Congo, but perhaps they can create a totalitarian state like Rwanda’s, where a tiny, super-militarized Tutsi minority reigns supreme over the country and crushes the majority Hutu population.

AG: In her new book “In Praise of Blood: Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front,” Judi Rever writes:

The market analyst predicted a complete geostrategic restructuring in central Africa, with Rwandan Tutsis, an ethnic group that had faced existential threats for decades, now steering affairs. “You’ll see a de facto ‘Greater Tutsi Land’ there. What you’ve got is a situation where Rwanda and Uganda are clearly now the dominant military powers in the region. They will do pretty much what they want.”

Do you agree that that’s what’s happened?

BM: Yes, absolutely. The Hima powers of Uganda and Tutsi of Rwanda are the dominant military force in the region. Although they are a minority in number, they control virtually all military decisions in the DRC and, of course, in Uganda and Rwanda. They operate within the framework of the American strategy of entrusting the “real power” to the minority communities even if they enslave the majority.

AG: Isn’t Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni a Tutsi, like Rwandan President Paul Kagame, though this is rarely discussed?

BM: Museveni was born in 1944. His parents were nomads from the Western Uganda Bahima subgroup of the Banyankole people, closely related to the Tutsis of Rwanda and Burundi.

AG: And was this elite minority ruling class selected and empowered by the US and its Western allies?

BM: Yes indeed. That is why elites in the Western countries remain silent about the terrible crimes that Kagame and Museveni have committed in the African Great Lakes region for more than 20 years. More than six million Congolese people have died by their crimes, but not a single Ugandan or Rwandan leader faces prosecution anywhere in the world.

AG: Pundits and policymakers here in the US argue that Congo is a “weak state,” so they need to break it up into smaller, stronger states. The 1961 assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected, post-independence Prime Minister, by US and Belgian operatives has precluded the possibility of Congo becoming a strong state for nearly 60 years.

BM: Congo is not a weak state, but a state where the occupying authorities intentionally weakened the state. Since Joseph Kabila came to power in 2001, every solution proposed—such as building a road, fighting corruption, or eliminating an armed group—has been sabotaged, so the problems only worsen. Why? Because the current authorities controlling the DRC, including President Kabila, have all come from Rwanda and Uganda, behind the armed movement that has been constantly renamed, from AFDL to RCD, CNDP, then M23. These authorities are on a mission to keep the Congolese state permanently weak, so that Kagame, their boss, can pursue his expansionist agenda in Congo.

When Congolese get rid of Kagame’s henchman Joseph Kabila, they will work to rebuild their country with a strong state. As it is now, 85% of Congolese mineral resources are looted by members of the regime and their foreign allies. If the Congolese reclaim their own resources, Congo can rapidly become a strong and wealthy state with a high standard of living.

AG: Who opposes the division of the Democratic Republic of Congo?

BM: The Congolese as a whole are strongly opposed to the Balkanization of their country. Congo is a multiethnic nation, but there is not a single Congolese community that supports Balkanization along ethnic lines.

*

Boniface Musavuli is a Congolese author and political exile living in France. He is the author of the book “Les Massacres de Beni: Kabila, le Rwanda et les Faux Islamistes “ (The Massacres of Beni: Kabila, Rwanda, and the Faux Islamists). This book will soon be published in English. He is also the author of “Les Genocides des Congolais—De Leopold II à Paul Kagame” (The Genocides of the Congolese—from Leopold II to Paul Kagame).

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist living in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. She can be reached at @AnnGarrison or [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The operation, Ukrainian officials said, helped to capture the person, who initiated the upcoming attempted assassination.

On May 29, it became known that journalist Arkady Babchenko was shot in the back in his apartment building. It was reported that Babchenko died on the way to hospital. On May 30, however, he appeared alive at a news conference, at which he said that the special operation had been prepared two months in advance.

“I was let into a month ago, and during this month I saw that the guys were working very hard, they were taking pains and plowing like buffaloes. We were in touch the whole month, we were thinking and working everything through. As a result, the special operation was conducted,” Babchenko said.

As he added, he was supposed to be killed prior to the Champions League finals in Kiev. He also said that the price for his assassination was set at $40,000.

Official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said that the staging of Babchenko’s murder had a propaganda effect.

Chairman of the International Association of Veterans of Alfa anti-terror unit, Sergei Goncharov, said that Ukraine’s operation was an “anachronism.” Yet, member of the board of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Anton Gerashchenko, believes that the Ukrainian security forces were guided by finest role models in their actions.

The head of the Council Committee on International Affairs of the Council of Federation, Konstantin Kosachev, said that the staging of the journalist’s assassination should be attributed to “a string of delusional actions of the Ukrainian authorities against Russia.”

The head of Reporters without Borders NGO Christophe Deloir called the situation part of the media war and expressed his deepest indignation in connection with the manipulations conducted by Ukrainian secret services.”

Ukrainian security forces claim that Russian special services stand behind the operation to plot Babchenko’s assassination. SBU representatives did not provide any evidence to prove their point, but said that the organiser “was talking about the need to eliminate 30 persons in Ukraine.” No names were specified.

Many assumed that the whole operation to stage the journalist’s death was bizarre. According to the version of the SBU, the Ukrainian special services knew who the organiser was (the “hand of the Kremlin”). Plus, the assassin had received $40,000 on his account. Consequently, the SBU had known the identity of the assassin long in advance. It was also said that the assassin had Babchenko’s passport photo. Why would the killer need such a photo given that it was taken nearly 20 years ago? It is an open secret that people may look very different from their passport photos. SBU claims that as long as the assassin had Babchenko’s passport photo, it means that the assassination was arranged by Russian special services. Yet, it is not only Russia that may have access to Babchenko’s passport. Passport is not a matter of state secrecy. Babchenko, like any other Russian citizen, would very often hand his passport to commercial organisations, such as banks, travel agencies, visa centres, etc. To crown it all, Babchenko, apparently, had received residence permit in Ukraine, which means that the Ukrainian government has a copy of his passport.

US journalist Jill Dougherty noted that the fact that Babchenko is alive was obviously good news, but this fact also struck a huge blow to the reputation of Ukraine, because no one would ever trust what the Ukrainians say.

The silence of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at the meeting with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier looked particularly remarkable.

It is worthy of note that a number of Western leaders condemned the “killing” of the Russian journalist and implied in their comments that Russia was to blame again.

“The Skripal case was made before the presidential election in Russia. The case of Babchenko was fabricated on the eve of the World Cup in Russia. It is important for them to disrupt all political processes and develop the process of Russophobia instead,” Russian Senator Franz Klintsevich said.

Traditionally, after the announcement of the news about the killing of Babchenko, the perpetrators were announced immediately – Russian special services. No investigation is required for such cases at all – they just point fingers at Russia and say it. The scenario was used in the UK, when Sergei and Yulia Skripal were said to have suffered from exposure to a highly toxic poison, from which they miraculously recovered within a very short period of time. A similar story was used in Syria, when the West masterminded the chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta. A number of victims of that attack soon rose from the dead and said that the attack was staged.

The Babchenko story is bizarre indeed. The journalist is alive, and all those, who have accused Russia of the crime seem to have made a blunder. So far, Western leaders have not released any new comments on the subject.

Some say protests in Gaza are useless: No tangible results. Then, there are silly discussions about biased reporting, 1 as if “balance”, representing two sides equally, leads to truth.  It doesn’t, at least not for questions that matter.

You don’t get objective truth by balancing available information. In fact, you may not get objective truth from true information. That view is naïve. It’s been known to be naïve for a long time: more than half a century by philosophers in the North and forever by some in the South.

It’s a simple point about how we know things: It depends on who you think you are. José Martí, who led a war for Latin America’s independence, political and human, said in his famous “Our America” that such naiveite – about knowledge – is a bigger barrier to human freedom than US power.

He meant freedom for human beings. They need to be known.

Jean Paul Sartre knew this point. He told Europeans in the 60s that they wouldn’t understand Frantz Fanon by reading Wretched of the Earth. It wasn’t because Fanon is obscure. He’s not. It’s because the “wretched” didn’t count, and that they didn’t count was part of what it meant to be European.

It was European identity. It is well-known that we don’t understand that which, if we did understand it, fully, would undermine our sense of who we are. It is why some white folk don’t get racism and why the US will never understand Cuba, or Venezuela.

It is not about how much information is available and from how many sources.

Sartre knew that Europeans would not understand Fanon because if they did, as Sartre puts it, the ground would move beneath them. They’d be insecure. He urged Europeans to let the ground move beneath them, in order to learn.

Sartre urged Europeans to “enter into” Fanon’s work:

“At a respectful distance”, he wrote, “it is you who feel furtive, nightbound, and perished with cold. Turn and turn about; from these shadows from which a new dawn will break, it is you who are the zombies”. 2

Palestinian teenager, Ahed Tamimi, also knows the point. She’s in jail for slapping a heavily armed Israeli soldier, on her own land, after her young cousin was shot in the head, also while unarmed. Tamimi told Abby Martin of Telesur that what would most help Palestinian kids is human solidarity: from around the world. 3

She doesn’t mean possessing information. Che Guevara said, famously, that

solidarity “has something of the bitter irony of the plebeians cheering on the gladiators in the Roman circus”.

It is not enough “to wish the victim success …  One must join the victim in victory or death”.

Or, at least, “turn and turn about”. Lenin called it a “passage through dark waters”.

Read Toni Morrison’s Beloved to know the experience.  It’s the story of an escaped slave who kills her children to protect them from slavery.  On the face of it, her choice is irrational. Nothing is gained, you might say. Her kid is dead. Slavery remains.

But read it and you find out that “used-to-be-slave”, Sethe, is not irrational at all.  And she’s not morally irresponsible. This is clear when you know her. You know Sethe as a human being who knows herself as a human being. That’s what dignity is.

The question, then, is not: What does she gain? Instead, it is: How is death an option for someone who is rational, loves her children and wants above all to protect them?

The answer is dehumanization. Sethe’s good friend, Paul D, also a “used-to-be-slave”, says:

“More frightening that what Sethe did was what Sethe claimed”.

She claimed her humanity. It was frightening even to Paul D, who knew everything that could be known about slavery.  He’d been a slave. He’d lived it.

Wretched of the Earth is about that claim: to be human. Fanon said resistance, sometimes violent, can be an act of self-creation. Sartre said Europeans wouldn’t understand, at least not just by reading intellectually, and not easily. They didn’t need self-creation, or so they thought.

“What is gained?” is not always useful. It is not even the question we ask ourselves when faced with important life choices, according to economists. 4 It is a simplistic view of human reasoning that says that what matters is results, and all we need to properly evaluate such results is a lot of data.

It ignores what Ramzy Baroud calls “the epic struggle to feel human”. With his new book, The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press 2018), readers can “turn and turn about” to know the dignity that drives that epic struggle in Gaza, rationally, and will continue to do so.

Martí knew that struggle.  So did Fidel Castro. Fidel articulated it his entire life although some, even sympathetic to Cuba, didn’t notice. At least occasionally, more frightening than what Fidel did was what he claimed: that the poor matter, that the poor remember, that human beings “think and feel”.

Not everyone understood, even on the left, and even with piles of information. It’s one of those truths which, if we understand it fully, changes who we think we are, as human beings. It’s been the message of many philosophers – Martí, Che Guevara – who understood the Empire (and its allies)’s dehumanization. They’d lived it.

They knew the epic struggle. The Last Earth takes us there, again.

*

Prof. Susan Babbitt teaches philosophy at Queen’s University, Kingston  Ont. She is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. CBC FM1 Sunday Edition Sunday, May 27, 2018

2. “Preface”, Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the earth (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1963)

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV1HwG1_phs

4. E.g. Pink, Dan (2010). The surprising truth about motivation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Featured image is from The Unz Review.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.8 million residents from essential supplies of food, medicine, power and goods has now continued for 11 years! 

This blockade is illegal, inhuman and an atrocity against a civilian population, the likes of which has no parallel in modern history.  It is the deliberate repression, starvation and oppression of nearly two million civilians in an illegal attempt by the nuclear-armed state of Israel to effect a regime change under the pretext of arms control. 

The number of Palestinians in Israel, the Occupied Gaza Strip, Occupied East Jerusalem and the Occupied West Bank is now estimated at over 5.3 million, exceeding the Jewish population of 5.2 million.

Arabs and Jews, in number, are therefore approximately equal yet the state of Israel controls the vast majority of the land and the indigenous population, through military force and illegal occupation and settlement.

The UN Security Council has declared the occupation of Palestinian land with the settlement of 600,000+ Israeli citizens, to be illegal and a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights.

For more than 11 years the world has watched as nearly two million indigenous Palestinians are deprived of basic humanitarian help.  Virtually no electricity or power, insufficient food and clothes, restricted building materials, no employment, prohibited movement of people or goods, a blockade of the entire Mediterranean coast of Gaza by heavily armed Israeli forces intent on beating two million into submission.  All this in the full glare of the international media.

It is an insult to humanity. An insult to democracy. An insult to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and an affront to God and all decent, civilised people everywhere.

*

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

Featured image: A U.S. Army infantryman waits atop an M2 Bradley fighting vehicle for the start of a live fire training exercise at Presidenski Range in Trzebian, Poland, March 26, 2018. (Spc. Dustin Biven/Army)

Poland made the news this week for all the wrong reasons because of its offer to pay between $1,5-2 billion to host a permanent American base on its territory. It’s difficult to explain this as anything other than what it looks like, which is a vassal paying tribute to its lord, but there might be another reason behind this move as well. As counterintuitive as it may sound at first listen, this plan is also partially designed to aggravate Russian-Belarusian relations by provoking Moscow into putting heavy pressure on Minsk to coordinate a joint response, ideally one that the Kremlin would like to see result in the revival of the two CSTO mutual defense partners’ failed talks from a few years back to host a Russian airbase in the frontline state. 

Behind-The-Scenes Intrigue Of Russian-Belarusian Relations 

Those negotiations fell through for publicly unexplainable reasons that probably in hindsight have to do with Lukashenko’s ambition to “balance” between East and West, a thin tightrope that he’s been trying to walk for the past couple of years ever since the 2014 success of the US-backed urban terrorism spree commonly referred to as “EuroMaidan” in neighboring Ukraine. Since then, Belarus has become a lot bolder in asserting its interests vis-à-vis Russia, betting that it’s now become “too important to lose” for Moscow to continue “playing games with” at what its leadership believes to be at the expense of their independent national interests. Whether it’s over the failed talks to host a Russian airbase or continual trade disputes within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU), Russian-Belarusian ties aren’t as perfect as their governments make them seem. 

Having recognized this “inconvenient fact”, they’re also nowhere close to horrible either, and Belarus is one of Russia’s actual allies in the sense of being doubly incorporated into two Moscow-led integration organizations, the CSTO and the EAU. This makes it obligatory, from an institutional-legal standpoint, for Belarus to support its Russian partner, though therein lies the core of their never-ending disagreements and Lukashenko’s power “balancing”, as he refuses to – as he sees it – “submit” to whatever the Kremlin tells him and instead is trying to gradually “diversify” his foreign policy by “opening up” to the West. It’s this ongoing transitional phase, coupled with the one-man leadership in Minsk, which makes Russian-Belarusian ties so sensitive because it means that Moscow’s junior partner is less prone to “do what he’s told” than before. 

Setting The Trap 

Reverting back to the lead-in topic at hand, Poland’s plans to permanently host a US base on its territory are a military-strategic provocation for Russia, and accordingly, should also be interpreted as such for the CSTO and its westernmost Belarusian member, too. The problem, though, is that Minsk – for whatever its public statements on the topic may be – probably doesn’t really see it that way because of the presumed series of “gentlemen’s agreements” that it’s reached with its newfound “Western partners”, which is why its Foreign Ministry said that it is not discussing the opening of a new Russian military base within its borders. It did, however, ambiguously leave this possibility open in the event that the US base is indeed built, but this might just be a “face-saving” signal of “friendship” to Russia than any serious intention. 

That said, the “knee-jerk” reaction that one would expect from Russia would be for it to utilize its CSTO mutual defense alliance with Belarus in doing exactly what Minsk said it’s not interested in, which is open up a base in the Polish-neighboring country just like it unsuccessfully tried to do a few years ago, and it’s precisely this scenario that Poland is counting on for several reasons. The first is that Warsaw knows that this move would reverse all of Minsk’s ”progress” with its “Western partners” and make the country more strategically dependent on Moscow, which is something that Lukashenko is trying to avoid and actually explains why he undertook this “gradual pivot” to begin with. Secondly, the concerted but clumsy exertion of Russian pressure on Belarus would likely have the opposite effect of what Moscow expects and could inadvertently advance Minsk’s strategic reorientation. 

Although it’s sometimes misleading to evaluate global affairs from a “zero-sum” perspective, in this instance it can be instructive if one takes stock of the situation in the former Soviet Union and concludes that Russia has “lost” Georgia, Ukraine, and recently, Armenia, with Belarus potentially “up for grabs” depending whether Russia’s response to the potential US base in Poland leads to it uncomfortably pressuring its ally to roll back its “Western pivot” out of the organizational solidarity that it’s obliged to practice. Chances are that Lukashenko would balk at this because he’s already concluded that his and his nation’s interests are best served through “balancing”, which is ironic because he’s essentially trying to “balance” the country that envisions its 21^st-century geostrategic role as being the supreme “balancing” force in Eurasia, but such are the curiosities of international politics at times. 

Concluding Thoughts

Right now it’s much too early to make any firm prognosis about the future of Russian-Belarusian relations in light of Poland’s plans to permanently host a US military base on its territory, but what can be understood at this moment is that ties aren’t as perfect as they may initially appear to be, though nor are they anywhere near as bad as their most diehard critics make them out to be either. In any case, it’s obvious that their relationship will be tested as Russia works out what it hopes will be a joint response together with tis Belarusian CSTO military ally, but there’s no telling whether Lukashenko will agree to whatever President Putin proposes given his recent predisposition for exploiting his country’s geography in order to “balance” East and West for ultimate gain. 

Russia will have to proceed very cautiously and be aware of the strategic trap that Poland has set for it in trying to make Moscow overreact and unintentionally chase away one of its last remaining post-Soviet allies. While the “knee-jerk” reaction to the provocative US-Polish move would be to reciprocate by opening up a Russian base in neighboring Belarus, decision makers should reflect on whether this is the wisest option in a practical sense, as it would risk straining the bilateral relationship with Minsk given the likelihood of Lukashenko rejecting it. 

Instead of going for a symbolic and highly publicized move that would play to the expectations of the global media and Moscow’s intended international audiences, it might be better to do away with the “muscle-flexing” and instead calmly announce that the new Kinzhal hypersonic missiles already deployed within the country’s borders will be aimed at this enemy base. This revolutionary technology is capable of more than making up for any perceived advantages that would derive from a base in Belarus because this munition could be shot at any adversary at a moment’s notice and strike it sooner than anything else could. It would of course be preferred if these weapons could be based in Belarus, but there’s nothing preventing them from being placed in Kaliningrad instead and even closer to Poland’s borders than expected. 

*

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.

Nobody in the mainstream media ever asks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or Finance Minister Bill Morneau if they’re perpetrating an unprecedented crime on future generations.

Even after the Liberal government announced its intention to pay a Texas oil company $4.5 billion for its Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project, coverage focused on the financial aspects of the deal, not its moral component. 

So these are the typical issues addressed:

How much would Canadian taxpayers pay to complete construction?

Are there really buyers in Asia for the 890,000 barrels per day of expensively produced, energy-intensive diluted bitumen that will arrive in Burnaby from Alberta?

What does this mean for the people who work on the project?

How will Indigenous people react?

The most uncomfortable questions about greenhouse gases are almost never broached.

But what if, in fact, Trudeau, Morneau, and politicians like them around the world are committing a crime of immense proportions on the young and those yet to be born?

What if this can be demonstrated through the relationship between additional greenhouse gas emissions and more powerful and deadly hurricanes, longer and more devastating forest fire seasons, and unimaginable flooding of seaside and riverside cities around the world?

Would the mainstream media become an accessory to the crime through its acquiescence?

These are some of the issues raised in an extraordinary new book, Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival, by B.C. authors Peter D. Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth.

“The global climate change emergency deserves and requires a rapid global emergency response,” Carter and Woodworth declare.

What’s more, they maintain that it would be criminally negligent to do otherwise. And they point out that information about the threat has been publicly available for nearly four decades.

“During the last ten UN climate conferences, the large GHG-polluting national governments not only committed the crime of omission by failing to protect their citizens from climate disruption: they blocked and delayed action needed to save vulnerable non-polluting nations from CO2-induced havoc already underway,” they write.

Carter is founder of the Climate Emergency Institute and was an expert reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel of on Climate Change’s fifth and most frightening assessment in 2014. Woodworth is a retired B.C. government medical librarian.

They document the shocking rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which surpassed 410 parts per million in the spring of 2017.

“This trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration increase is on course with the worst case IPCC 2014 scenario…which leads to a best estimate warming from atmospheric GHGs of 4.3 °C by 2100,” Carter and Woodworth write. “However, the IPCC says it could be as high as 7.8 °C by 2100 when including uncertainties such as amplifying feedbacks. Large feedback emissions are certain at 3 °C.”

As well, they keep readers up to date on record sea-surface temperatures, the rapid decline in Arctic ice in the summer, and the disturbing impacts of deforestation on the Earth’s capacity to retain carbon.

Do politicians have blood on their hands?

The first half of the book is called “Crimes Against Life and Humanity”, laying out the legal case for state-corporate crime in willfully blocking actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions, which would save millions of lives.

In one chapter, the authors focus on media collusion, noting that not a single question about climate change was asked in six hours of 2016 presidential debates.

They also write:

“Big Carbon could never have been able to continue its polluting ways—long after the scientific community had reached consensus about the connection between fossil-fuel emissions, global warming, and climate change—without the assistance of the media.”

It’s all so familiar to climate-conscious Canadians who’ve paid close attention to national TV network and newspaper coverage of the bailout of Kinder Morgan.

And in Unprecedented Crime, the case is developed in a clear, logical way that not only appeals to people with a great deal of expertise about climate change, but also to average readers who may not grasp the magnitude of the challenge facing humanity.

“We have established that the decades-long blocking and lying about the scientific evidence on the dangers of human-caused global warming has been deliberate,” Carter and Woodworth write. “So the question arises, how many people have been, or will be, hurt or killed by climate change?”

The answer, according to a DARA International report, was 400,000 deaths each year, with that expected to rise to 600,000 by 2030 as a result of climate change.

The report notes that another 400,000 to five million per year could die annually from the health consequences of burning fossil fuels.

The importance of the “normalcy bias”

Deep in Unprecedented Crime, Carter and Woodworth delve into the “normalcy bias”.

This “belief that things will always, ultimately, return to normal” is common among those entering a disaster.

This has been reflected in Canadian media coverage of recent B.C. floods, which were described as a once-in-a-100-year or once-in-a-200-year event.

It was on display in the reports on last year’s forest fires in B.C., which shattered the record for hectares consumed. Again, this was treated as utterly extraordinary, and not something we may see again in our lifetimes, let alone every two or three years.

The forest-fire cycle has started earlier than normal this year, with evacuation orders and alerts being issued in the Southern Interior of B.C.

People in the Gulf states and the Caribbean are being warned to prepare for another brutal hurricane season.

This normalcy bias, insist Carter and Woodworth, “is obstructing our view of the gathering climate disaster”.

What’s most galling is that this unprecedented crime of jacking up fossil-fuel production is occurring when alternatives are at hand.

Seven chapters in Part II of the book, “Game Changers for Survival”, outline in detail what can be done to wean the world off fossil fuels.

The authors rely heavily on the Stanford Solutions Project, which has laid out a road map for making renewable energy a reality for everyone.

Carter and Woodworth favour carbon pricing over cap-and-trade of greenhouse gas emissions, describing the latter as “a subterfuge designed to promote fossil fuel viability”.

There’s also an intriguing section on a public-trust lawsuit, Juliana v. United States et al., which is being advanced by climate scientist James Hansen on behalf of his granddaughter.

Hansen wrote the foreword for the book, stating that it makes “an overwhelming case that the public, especially young people, are victims of ‘Unprecedented Crime’.”

“Fortunately, Carter and Woodworth do much more than expose the crimes against humanity—they also present actions that people can take to alleviate the consequences for today’s public and for future generations,” Hansen adds.

To that end, there’s a breathtaking array of technological solutions to the climate crisis outlined in the book.

They include a detailed explanation how improvements in battery technology is making it far easier to store renewable electricity.

And, of course, Unprecedented Crime documents phenomenal progress in the development of solar, wind, and geothermal energy.

The authors close by declaring that high-emitting national governments “are continuing to sacrifice our survival—and the survival of all future generations—for fossil fuel corporate profit that includes untold oil for military operations subsidized with our money”.

They say it’s time for ordinary people who love their children to demand a stop to this and embrace the solutions outlined in the book.

Are Trudeau and Morneau listening?

If not, they might one day find themselves before a court of law explaining their actions in front of a judge.

That’s one obvious takeaway from Unprecedented Crime, and one that’s particularly timely in light of the Kinder Morgan bailout.

Title: Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival

Author: Peter D. Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth

ISBN: 978-0-9986947-3-3

Price: $27.95

.

.

.

.

.

Nigel Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983-89 said in a speech that: “Most of the world is not in the EU and … most of these countries are doing better economically than most of the European Union’. The alternative to membership of the EU is simple, he says: it is ‘not being in the European Union’

That statement was a complete lie. There are only 16 countries in a world of 191 economies that has an annual GDP of over $1trillion and 67 per cent of all global economies generate less than one-third of what Britain does. The EU itself is the second largest economy in the world, behind America with one-third of the top 25 trading nations being in the EU.

About 43% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2016-17  – £240 billion out of £550 billion total exports. The EU is Britain’s biggest single customer.

So being outside the EU does come with risks. Those risks centre mainly around leaving the 27 nation trading bloc and then not having other trade agreements signed and ready. Of the 40 trade agreements Liam Fox has avidly expressed are all lining up to sign, not one – I repeat, not one has actually been signed.

As for trade agreements more widely, it is an open secret – albeit one that’s under-acknowledged by trade policy professionals – that signing a free trade agreement does next to nothing for a country’s headline GDP. For reference, the flagship EU-Canada free trade agreement is only predicted to increase European GDP by 0.03% – and even this is actually a rounding error. One has to be careful what is actually meant by these trade agreements in the first place.

In the meantime, Nigel Lawson has been comfortably sat in the House of Lords since 1992 now lives in the past. He constantly refers to his golden years under Thatcher by saying that it was “the reforms that restored the UK economy during the Thatcher administration.” That too is a lie. Thatcher brought us an ideology called neoliberal capitalism and today we are where we are because of it; the breakdown of community and civil society, the crumbling system of globalisation and the world order as we know it because its fundamental message of ‘trickle down economics’ was a falsehood – and everyone now knows it. Hence the rise of populist leaders, isolationism and protectionism.

The result of that is that Britain is to become fully ‘Americanised’ – and I can’t think of anything worse.

But more recently, this highly vocal and visible arch-Brexiteer who thinks all Briton’s should do as he says has moved to Gers, south-west France. How nice.

Lawson said in 2016 that leaving the EU would not affect Britons’ fundamental rights but it might mean “a little extra tiresome paperwork.”

Then, we find out that Lawson is applying for his carte de séjour, which guarantees those rights. In other words, Lawson is applying for residency in France. He is effectively abandoning Britain to ensure his fundamental rights of are protected.

Lawson has not lived in France for long – only several years but has stated that the EU is ‘profoundly’ undemocratic, suffers from ‘a bureaucratic surplus’ and has a ‘democratic deficit’ and that membership is an affront to self-government.

And yet, prefers to live there than Britain.

That’s strange don’t you think.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Featured image: Thuy` Linh, 21 years old. Third generation Agent Orange victim genetic malformation, born without arms. Thuy` Linh finished high school 2 years ago. She applied to many universities to study but most of them didn’t accept her because of her missing arms. Her mother finally found a school willing to admit her. She finished her course in design a few months ago. Currently, she is looking for a suitable job. She went to Tû Dû Obstetrics Hospital when she was 3 years old and stayed until she was 18. HO CHI MINH CITY, VIET NAM, 2015. Photo credit: Mathieu Asselin

Many documentary photography projects attempt to reveal the structural violence that society has wrought. Monsanto: a photographic investigation by photographer Mathieu Asselin is more specific in its aim: it is a visual call for corporate responsibility. Drawing on the theme of temporality that pollution often creates, the photobook is a timeline that documents over 100 years of chemical harm. The book explains through word and image how the agrochemical company Monsanto has caused ecological, social, and health problems for countless people across the world.

“The book draws on a wide range of visual techniques to tell its dark story”

If Asselin’s visual project was an academic dissertation, it could be described as using a ‘mixed methods’ approach. I don’t make the comparison to scholarly work lightly: the photobook is an impressively well researched photo-thesis. It could also be compared to recent moves within academia towards ‘slow scholarship’: the photobook is the product of long term investigative documentary work. From studio photographs, to outside portraits, and from candid images, to landscape photographs, the book draws on a wide range of visual techniques to tell its dark story.

It is both ethnographic and archival in tone, weaving original images with repurposed corporate texts and pictures. As Colin Pantall rightly said: ‘it punches home a message by any means necessary’. The book is both sophisticated and thorough, providing a well timed antidote to the Greenwashing that chemical companies so often employ. It is no surprise that a company like Monsanto does everything it can to improve its reputation, as accusations of environmental injustice still abound: in June this year the company will go on trial for allegedly hiding evidence that their weed killing products cause cancer.

Monsanto: a photographic investigation extends the conventional borders of documentary photography, using documents, memorabilia, advertisements, and found objects in its narration of Monsanto. For example, the first ‘act’ of the book is dedicated to Monsanto adverts, which create a utopian image of the agrochemical company, which is later demolished through Asselin’s adroit visual material.

David Baker (65) at his brother Terry’s grave. Terry Baker died at the age of 16 from a brain tumor and lung cancer, caused by PCB exposure. The average level of PCB in Anniston is twenty-seven times higher than the national average. EDGEMONT CEMETERY, WEST ANNISTON, ALABAMA, 2012. Photo credit: Mathieu Asselin

The juxtaposition between bullish slogans of Monsanto’s advertisements and Asselin’s careful documentation of the visual damage the company has caused is striking. ‘Chemicals make you eat better’ reads one corporate message; ‘Chemicals help you to live longer’ reads another. As Environmental activist Mark Lynas writes in ‘Seeds of Science‘, Monsanto tried and failed ‘to reclaim the word ‘chemical’ from rising public distrust and recast it as something good’. Asselin’s photography project becomes an interrogation, of sorts, exposing these messages for what they are. In one such official document displayed in the book, a memo from 1969 reads ‘we can’t afford to lose one dollar of business‘, raising questions about the uneven price of life, and what Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee calls ‘necrocapitalism’.

The academic project ‘ToxicDocs‘, from Columbia University and the City University of New York, recently unearthed classified Monsanto documents that demonstrate the necrocapitalism of the chemical industry. Among the millions of previously classified documents on industrial poisons that ToxicDocs have disclosed, are hand written notes from a meeting at Monsanto on 25th August 1969. The document reveals how the chemical company planned to deal with the harm that their PCBs’ were causing to the environment. At the meeting, they brainstormed several alternative ways forward, including “1) Go out of business“, and “2) sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else“. Monsanto would continue to sell PCBs for almost a decade longer, until public pressure helped to ban the chemical in the late 1970s.

‘What do we tell our customers: The Big Question!’ Recently revealed documents from a Monsanto meeting in 1969. Documents found via the Toxic Docs project. (view the  original Monsanto documents here)

“The book reminded me of ‘multi-sited ethnography’ that was made popular by British Sociologist Michael Burowoy”

Thematically, Monsanto: a photographic investigation can be compared to Philip Jones Griffiths’ monochrome photography book ‘Agent Orange: Collateral Damage in Vietnam’ (2003). Asselin, born two generations after Griffiths, not only exposes the intergenerational harm of this deadly defoliant chemical, but also traces the toxic reach of pollution back to the ‘unregulated paradise‘ of Alabama, USA. In this sense, the book reminded me of ‘multi-sited ethnography‘ that was made popular by British Sociologist Michael Burowoy, as well as the ‘follow the thing‘ approach forwarded by human geographer Ian Cook. The global connections and geographies of harm created by Monsanto are vividly portrayed in this photobook, in both photographic and extraphotographic ways.

In 1996, Monsanto® introduced its first GMO seeds. It ensured that farmers could not save the seeds and essentially lost the ownership of their seeds. Consequently, the power balance shifted away from the farmers to corporations who now own about 80 percent of GM corn and 93 percent of the GM soy market. Now farmers not only have to buy the seeds from the corporations year after year, but they are also forced to comply with the rules and regulations embedded in the contracts, which are designed to put the farmers at a juridical disadvantage. VAN BUREN, INDIANA, 2013. Photo credit: Mathieu Asselin

Like in other toxic geographies, at first glance the landscapes Asselin documents are not obviously contaminated, and the people he photographs are not always obviously affected. The photographs Asselin uses are shot in the places Monsanto touched with its social and chemical legacy, including Vietnam where many victims of Agent Orange still live, and the post-industrial landscapes of America, where other toxic legacies persist to this day. In the book we learn about Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which Monsanto continued to manufacture for many years, despite knowing its health risks. We also learn how exposure to Agent Orange has been linked to myelomas, Parkinson’s disease, Hodgkin’s disease, lymphomas, Diabetes Type II, Leukemia, Amyloidosis, Prostate Cancer, and many other illnesses. In this photobook, Asselin exposes the chemical company to a visual scrutiny not normally given to powerful corporations like Monsanto.

“We are all living downstream of companies like Monsanto”

To quote the writer and photographer Lewis Bush: “It’s really, really rare that a photobook speaks to you in a way which feels important beyond the narrow realm of photography, and even does so in a way which feels desperately urgent.” (You can read his excellent review of the book and an interview with Mathieu Asselin here). Having spent the last few years doing ethnographic research with communities impacted by chemical pollution in ‘Cancer Alley’, Louisiana, I am also taken by the urgency of this subject. This photography project is not a work of historical retrospection, but an ongoing story that continues to impact the lives of many people around the world. We are all living downstream of companies such as Monsanto, and meticulously researched documentary work such as this photobook become important mechanisms to hold such industries accountable.

‘Monsanto: a photographic investigation’ has been awarded multiple photography prizes, including the Dummy Book Award Kassel 2016, the Aperture Foundation First Book Award in 2017, and was recently shortlisted for the Deutsche Börse Photography Foundation 2018.

Mathieu Asselin is giving a talk about ‘Monsanto: a photographic investigation’ at Photobook Festival Kassel, Germany, on June 1st 2018: tickets here. You can follow Mathieu Asselin on twitter here. And find out more about his book here.

*

Sources

Asselin, M., 2017. Monsanto: A Photographic Investigation, Verlag Kettler

Bobby Banerjee, S., 2008. Necrocapitalism. Organization Studies, 29(12), pp.1541-1563.

Cook, I., 2004. Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode, 36(4), pp.642-664.

Griffiths, P.J., 2003. Agent Orange:” collateral Damage” in Viet Nam. Trolley

Lynas, M., 2018. Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Nixon, R., 2011. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press.

Featured image: Silwan/City of David. Photo credit: Emek Shaveh.

This month, the Israeli minister of culture Miri Regev (MK Jewish Home) announced plans to funnel $17 million toward archaeological excavations in East Jerusalem.

Regev announced the project to commemorate the 1967 Israeli occupation of the holy city. Israel’s 1967 occupation and subsequent annexation of Jerusalem stands in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Security Council resolutions 194, 181, 252, 476 and 478.

The goal of the excavations, according to a culture ministry statement quoted in Israeli media, is to “expose Jerusalem’s antiquities and…express the history of the Jewish people 3,000 years ago.” The grant also aims to “empower” Jerusalem as an “international center of religion, heritage, culture and tourism.”

The bulk of the funds will fuel excavations at the settlement archeology site known as the City of David, which is located in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan, south of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The center sits on a confiscated Palestinian home and orchard. Elad’s excavations in and around the site have severely damaged nearby Palestinian residences. Israeli police and private security guards permanently monitor the site, leading to increased harassment and arrests of Palestinians. Speaking to the Times of Israel, vice president of the City of David Foundation said:

“[Regev’s] decision will enable the City of David National Park to double the number of those seeking to connect with the history of Jerusalem with their own eyes, to over one million annually.”

The entrance to the City of David settlement and archeological site. Photo credit: Emek Shaveh.

Although the City of David is part of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, it is administered by settler organization Elad, which seizes Palestinian property in Silwan to establish new settlements. The group effectively functions as an arm of the Israeli government, and the government permits Elad to conceal the names of its major donors. Israeli settlement watch group Peace Now reports that in the last two years, Elad has stolen ten Palestinian properties in Silwan, including three apartments in April 2018.

Regev’s pledge to expand the City of David’s activities supports government plans to destroy evidence of Palestinian history in the Old City, Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah, the Mount of Olives, Ras al-Amud, Musrara and Mamilla and build tourist sites that peddle messianic justifications for Israeli colonization. This year, the government escalated its confiscation of Bab al-Rahmah Cemetery, a centuries-old Muslim cemetery outside of the Old City, in the name of incorporating it into the Jerusalem Walls National Park. In 2017, the Jerusalem municipality published a plan to confiscate 1,300 square meters of land next to a mosque in Ras al-Amud to build a visitor center for the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery. Perhaps the most well known example of Israeli destruction for the purposes of tourism is the building of Independence Park and the Museum of Tolerance in Mamilla. Both are located on what was once the Mamilla Cemetery, which, historian Rashid Khalidi has written “is reputed to have become the burial place of several of the Prophet Muhammad’s Companions who died during or after the nascent Muslim state’s military campaigns in the region.”

Construction at Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem, May 2014. Photo credit: Utilisateur:Djampa for Wikipedia Commons.

Israeli efforts to erase Palestinian landownership and history however are not limited to the aforementioned neighborhoods in Jerusalem. For years, the Israeli government has been confiscating lands in the Cremisan Valley to create the Emek Refaim Park, an Israeli National Park on the outskirts of Jerusalem that celebrates “historic agrarian landscapes” and “traditional culture.” Walaja, a village adjacent to the Cremisan Valley has been hit particularly hard by these confiscations and accompanying restrictions to Palestinian movement. Most recently, Israeli authorities built a new checkpoint to bar residents from accessing Wallaja’s historic spring so that Israelis can enjoy it as part of Emek Refaim Park.

*

Corey Sherman is a teacher in Washington D.C. and a contributing editor to aicnews.org.

Since 2001, Global Research has been delivering critical analysis to its readers as well as direction for the questions we should be asking.

If you look to our website as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events or to experience diversity and transparency in your news, please consider making a donation to Global Research.

Global Research is an independent organization that is funded exclusively through the support of its readers.

We should mention that we are currently running a monthly budget deficit. 

Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you count on.

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

US Opposes Protecting Gazans from Excessive Israeli Force

By Stephen Lendman, June 01, 2018

Since mid-2007, Gazans have been besieged under suffocating/illegal blockade – imposed for political reasons, unrelated to security, as Israel falsely claims.

Its action is one of countless examples of callous indifference to Palestinian lives, rights and welfare, treating them as viciously as Hitler mistreated Jews – slow-motion genocide its option over industrial scale ruthlessness, Gazans harmed most.

Freedom Flotilla Statement on Israeli Interception of Gaza Flotilla

By Freedom Flotilla Coalition, June 01, 2018

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) condemns Israel’s brutal act of state piracy in attacking the aptly named Hurriya (Liberty) vessel which attempted to leave the port of Gaza today filled with people needing urgent medical assistance as well as students and crew, as they attempted to peacefully make safe passage to Cyprus. This latest attempt to break the illegal blockade of Gaza continues the brave challenges during the Great March of Return, where more than 120 Palestinians have been shot and killed by Israeli snipers and thousands severely injured.

Gaza Massacre Update: “Decent Humanity” Will Boycott Apartheid Israel and All Its Supporters

By Gideon Polya, June 01, 2018

The latest Israeli Gaza Massacre in which Apartheid Israeli soldiers shot and killed 116 unarmed Palestinian protesters and wounded 13,000, has divided the world into 2 camps, (1) the Good, those who have variously reacted with horror, condemnation and demands for action against the Israeli perpetrators, and (2) the Bad, those whose responses have been to support the perpetrators or have been otherwise deficient.

Crimes against Humanity and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

By Julian Rose, May 29, 2018

For decades Palestinians have lived on the edge of annihilation, their homeland steadily annexed until just a slither of the original remains. It’s a story that just won’t go away, even for those thousands of miles away, who try to cover their ears and eyes from the shame which has befallen the ruthless oppressor of this now tiny peninsular of land and its battle weary people.

With One Shot: One Kill of the Israeli Defense Narrative

By Phil Butler, May 27, 2018

Gaza is all in the news since protesters were fired upon by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from inside perimeter fence dividing peoples and ideas. As complex as the situation in Palestine is though, there are only four concrete sides to the crisis. Here are those four sides framed and simplified in the hopes that sanity and humaneness can prevail henceforth.

Blaming the Victims of Israel’s Gaza Massacre

By Gregory Shupak, May 20, 2018

On the 70th anniversary of Israel’s so-called “declaration of independence,” the United States opened its new embassy in Jerusalem—a city Israel claims as its own, despite what international law says on the matter—and Palestinians undertook unarmed protests in reaction to the move and as part of the Great Return March. Although to this point, the only Israeli casualty during the entire cycle of demonstrations has been one “lightly wounded” soldier, considerable space in coverage of the massacres is devoted to blaming Palestinians for their own slaughter.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

In early April, the Trump regime appeared heading toward trade war with China – a scheme aiming to harm Beijing economically, unrelated to producing more domestic jobs if pursued.

Fewer imports from China would increase them from other low-wage countries. US manufacturing jobs created are increasingly performed by robots in many cases.

Beijing wants cooperative political, economic and trade relations with Washington, unwilling to compromise its growth strategy.

Following May 17 and 18 trade talks in Washington, China expressed willingness to “significantly increase purchases of United States goods and services (to) help support growth and employment in the United States.”

At the same time, lead Beijing trade negotiator/Vice Premier Liu said it’ll take time to resolve differences between both countries. In 2017, China’s trade surplus with America was a record-high $375 billion.

Beijing agreed to increase purchases of US agricultural and energy products – details to be discussed in future talks.

Trade is reciprocal. China wants access to US high-tech products, a sticking point in bilateral relations, certain US products off-limits to Chinese buyers. Beijing wants this policy ended.

Both countries agreed to avoid a trade war. Washington proved countless times it can never be trusted, its promises most often proving hollow.

US-initiated trade war may be back on again. According to China’s Global Times (GT),

“(t)he Trump administration said on Tuesday that it would proceed with plans to impose a series of punitive trade-related measures aimed at China next month,” adding:

“The statement said the US would levy 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion in imported Chinese goods, and will target items ‘containing industrially significant technology’ related to the ‘Made in China 2025’ program. The new tariffs will be announced June 15.”

The Trump regime also said it’ll restrict Chinese investment in America, along with limiting access to US technology by its companies and investors – restrictions to be announced June 30.

China responded to Trump’s about face, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying sharply saying

“(w)e urge the United States to keep its promise,” adding:

“When it comes to international relations, every time a country does an about face and contradicts itself, it’s another blow to, and a squandering of, its reputation.”

On Wednesday, US officials arrived in Beijing for more trade talks. China vowed to retaliate in kind if Trump follows through on his threat, GT warning Trump’s “trade renege could leave Washington dancing with itself.”

China is an economic powerhouse, a US strategic political, economic and military rival.

Along with possible US-initiated trade war, sanctions war could follow much like Washington’s policy against Russia – the unacceptable way it treats other sovereign independent states.

Separately, the Trump regime imposed tariffs on EU, Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum – 25% on former products, 10% on latter ones, effective midnight May 31.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced them, saying

“(w)e look forward to continued negotiations, both with Canada and Mexico on the one hand, and with the European Commission on the other hand, because there are other issues that we also need to get resolved.”

Brussels pledged to retaliate with 25% tariffs on US motorcycles, jeans, cigarettes, bourbon whiskey, cranberry juice, peanut butter, and possibly other products.

Mexico said it’ll impose tariffs on US pork bellies, blueberries, apples, grapes, cheese products, various types of steel, and perhaps other products. Canada said it’ll “respond appropriately to defend jobs.”

Earlier, European Council President Donald Tusk said

Trump “made us realize that if you need a helping hand, (you’ll only) find one at the end of your arm” in dealing with his administration, adding:

“…Europe should be grateful for President Trump because thanks to him we have got rid of all illusions.”

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker called Trump’s action “a bad day for world trade,” saying

“counter-balancing measures (will be announced) in the coming hours.”

Trade wars are hugely counterproductive, assuring losers, not winners.

It’s unclear how things will develop in the weeks and months ahead – especially for the world economy if things go too far.

*

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].

Since mid-2007, Gazans have been besieged under suffocating/illegal blockade – imposed for political reasons, unrelated to security, as Israel falsely claims.

Its action is one of countless examples of callous indifference to Palestinian lives, rights and welfare, treating them as viciously as Hitler mistreated Jews – slow-motion genocide its option over industrial scale ruthlessness, Gazans harmed most.

The Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement calls Gaza’s closure “politically driven. (D)egradation of its economy and civilian infrastructure, including its hospitals, are not an unforeseen natural disaster.”

It’s “the direct (result) of closure. For Gaza, time does not heal all. It only makes things worse” – its two million population victimized by what Edward Said called “refined (Israeli) viciousness.”

Israeli control of Gaza is absolute – “in the throes of a manmade humanitarian disaster,” B’Tselem explained.

Suffocating conditions made the Strip unlivable for its people – grossly abused, impoverished, suffering under concentration camp conditions, imposed by a vicious occupier, the world community failing to hold it accountable.

Israel’s 2005 Disengagement Plan was subterfuge. Gaza remains occupied, Israel exerting total control over its borders, offshore waters and airspace.

All movement of people and goods in and out of the Strip is totally controlled, Rafah crossing under Egyptian control, most often closed. Cairo and Tel Aviv cooperate in persecuting long-suffering Gazans.

Maintaining separation between Gaza and the West Bank is longstanding Israeli policy – movement between them subject to extremely hard to get permit permission, foreign travel mostly banned.

According to Gisha obtained document through a Freedom of Information petition, Israel imposed a “deliberate reductive policy” on the Strip, mandating minimal caloric intake, barely enough for survival only.

One Israeli official earlier called it putting Gazans on a diet, stopping short of starvation, fostering malnutrition, leaving residents vulnerable to otherwise preventable illnesses and diseases.

Years of blockade took a terrible toll on Gaza’s healthcare system – near collapse for lack of equipment in good working order, shortages of everything including essential drugs, limited power availability, and harsh restrictions on travel outside the Strip for medical treatment not available internally.

Adequate care for the seriously wounded and ill is virtually impossible to get for most Gazans, doctors severely limited in what they’re able to do. Badly wounded limbs are lost to amputations for lack of other options.

Gaza’s economy is in a state of collapse, 80% of its residents dependent on inadequate amounts of humanitarian aid. Food insecurity affects most Gazans.

Nearly all Strip water is contaminated and unpotable. Residents able to afford it buy expensive desalinated water – much of it contaminated. Electricity is available only a few hours daily.

Hospitals rely on generators, forced to offer limited services for shortages of everything. Sewage treatment facilities can’t operate properly, partially and untreated sewage pumped into offshore waters, turning them into a toxic stew.

Blockade prevents adequate construction for lack of enough building materials. Most everything Israel considers possibly “dual use” is hard or impossible to get.

Tens of thousands remain homeless because of three preemptive Israeli wars of aggression since December 2008.

Israel’s buffer zone along its border put vital farmland off-limits. Live fire policy endangers anyone entering or near the zone.

Israel is unaccountable for high crimes throughout the Territories too egregious to ignore, ruthlessness harming Gazans most of all.

On Friday, a Kuwait-drafted Security Council resolution to be voted on calls for protecting Gazans from Israeli high crimes, citing “excessive use of force” against (peaceful) demonstrators by IDF soldiers.

Washington intends vetoing it. Neocon extremist US UN envoy Nikki Haley falsely called it “grossly one-sided…only serv(ing) to undermine ongoing efforts toward peace” – bald-faced lies!

The US and Israel deplore peace and stability, waging endless undeclared wars of aggression, civilians in affected theaters harmed most – Gazans viciously abused for 11 years under suffocating blockade conditions.

According to PA UN envoy Riyad Mansour, Washington intends vetoing the Kuwaiti draft resolution unless it’s unacceptably amended.

Instead of even minimal Israeli accountability for horrendous high crimes, the Trump regime wants pro-Western UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to submit undefined “recommendations” on Gaza within 60 days.

As long as Israel has firm US support, it’ll remain unaccountable for the highest of high crimes too serious to ignore.

*

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

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) condemns Israel’s brutal act of state piracy in attacking the aptly named Hurriya (Liberty) vessel which attempted to leave the port of Gaza today filled with people needing urgent medical assistance as well as students and crew, as they attempted to peacefully make safe passage to Cyprus. This latest attempt to break the illegal blockade of Gaza continues the brave challenges during the Great March of Return, where more than 120 Palestinians have been shot and killed by Israeli snipers and thousands severely injured.

Communication was lost with the Gaza Flotilla vessel around 3pm local time today, after it was reported to have been surrounded by warships of the Israeli Occupation Forces about nine nautical miles off the coast of Gaza. Organisers hold Israel responsible for the safety and well-being of everyone on board, including those people suffering from pre-existing serious injuries who were seeking medical treatment abroad. Since March 30, 2018, when Palestinians in Gaza began the Great Return March, the UN Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that medical facilities in Gaza, already overstrained by the longstanding shortages of medical supplies, electricity and fuel, are struggling to cope with the overwhelming number of casualties.

We remind governments of the world and international organizations that this Israeli attack at just nine nautical miles from the Palestinian coast at Gaza is well within the 20 nautical mile marine zone which Palestinians are supposed to be guaranteed under international agreements, as well as within the 12 nautical miles to which all coastal peoples are legally entitled. Given the declared itinerary of Hurriya (Liberty), from Palestinian territorial waters through international waters to Cyprus, there can be no possible ‘military’ or ‘security’ justification for this Israeli attack. Like our Freedom Flotilla vessels that have been violently seized over the last eight years, their course was never towards Israel nor towards Israeli waters: they posed no threat to anyone. Like Israel’s daily armed attacks on Palestinian fishing boats and the arbitrary restrictions on fishing areas off Gaza, today’s attack is a clear violation of international law and of Israel’s obligations under the Geneva Convention as the occupying power.

Just as the Great March of Return is an affirmation of Palestinians freedom of movement back to the communities they were ethnically cleansed from in 1947 and 1948, today’s Gaza Flotilla is a powerful affirmation of freedom of movement that is directed towards the outside world, not towards lands currently occupied by Israel. We condemn all violations of freedom of movement, including the “marine barrier” that Israel has recently been reported to be constructing.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the rights of every person to move freely around their own country as well as the right to leave and return to their country. We stand with Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, until they achieve full recognition and protection of their rights, including full freedom of movement.

We are grateful for the amazing work of everyone who reported live on today’s events, including journalists from one of our Palestinian partners in Gaza, We Are Not Numbers who have been providing video and statements from the port of Gaza and from on the water. We have the deepest respect for your courageous reporting and we are honoured to help bring Palestinian voices like yours to the world.

This opens an unprecedented crisis in post-WWII political history in Italy. A crisis that can be defined as “European”, because it says something unequivocal: that the majority of the Italian electorate deems it necessary to change the politics of Europe, to change Europe as it is. Stop. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

And the outcome – provisional, completely provisional – says that the Italian ruling class, the one that led the country to the current crisis, the public debt over € 2.300 billion, six million poor families, youth unemployment to 50 % in the south, the disaster of social services, wild privatization, stagnation, generalized precariousness, not only does not intend to leave, but relies on the blackmail of the “markets” and claims that it has the best of the popular vote.

Interpreter of this “strange idea” was the President of the Italian Republic, Sergio Mattarella, who explicitly explained his thoughts. Violating article 1 of the Constitution, on which he swore, that sounds unequivocal:

“Sovereignty belongs to the people”.

The “excuse” choice was the nomination of Paolo Savona as minister of Economy. The professor was “accused” by Mattarella to want the Euro exit. The accusation was totally unfounded, as he informed interested parties with a statement by the unequivocal words:

“I just fight for a stronger and juster Europe”.

It was not enough. Mattarella did not make any secret of his alarmist and alarmed thoughts: a government with this minister would still be a negative sign for Europe. And therefore, better prevent the formation of the government that run this risk.

He had perhaps foreseen that the leader of the League, Matteo Salvini, and the leader of the 5 Stars, Luigi Di Maio, would have surrendered, taking away from Paolo Savona and falling back on a different solution. But, yesterday afternoon, the two leaders of the new majority – after unpublished, dramatic and unexpected meetings with the President – answered spades:

“we cannot and we do not want to give up to requests that, obviously, come from outside the country. A majority exists, the premier in charge, Giuseppe Conte, has the list of ministers ready, the President does not have the powers to reject the “government of change”.

And Mattarella has crossed the Rubicon deciding that the “markets” count more than people. And he did it with a further challenge, announcing an immediate plan, exclusively his own, for a government of the President. A few hours after the announcement that today he would meet Sergio Cottarelli, perhaps to entrust him with an assignment. But the numbers say that even if Cottarelli (former minister for the spending review of Letta government) were to be presented to the Chambers, he would not receive a majority.

But this would allow Mattarella to keep him in charge, for current affairs and to approve, with decree (another serious irregularity) a new electoral law. These are just hypotheses, for the moment, but all are signs of a clash that opposes the outgoing political èlite to the popular vote on March 4th. And that is a prelude to a situation of generalized political confrontation.

The response of M5 Stars was immediately furious, as was that of Salvini for League: proposal to launch the procedure of Impeachment for the attack on the Constitution. Lega, in the moment we are writing, is not yet clearly pronounced. Salvini invited his own to calm. Evidently thinking that, in the event of early elections, its success will nevertheless be overflowing. But even the small right-wing coalition Fratelli d’Italia immediately announced that it would support the impeachment.

If these positions were consolidated, there would be the numbers for the impeachment in the two assembled chambers. And, for Mattarella, the situation would become incandescent. There were only two precedents of this kind: the first against the then President Leone, the other against Francesco Cossiga. In both cases the impeachment did not take place because both of them resigned before the vote. But in this case it will not be so easy to evade by the responsibility.

In any case, it will not be a short story. Much has yet to happen: what government, what duration, with what tasks. Furthermore: what will be the reactions of so-called “markets”, of Germany, of France, of the European Central Bank. Finally when and if there will be new elections.

On the President’s side there is majority of great mass media, which justify and defend him. There is Democratic Party of Matteo Renzi. And there is Berlusconi too. Which means that the right alliance is definitely over. Berlusconi extends his hand to the Democratic Party, to save himself. It is clear that, in case of election, both are even more at risk than they have shown their double electoral disaster on 4 March. And, in any case, they do not have the numbers to resist the popular wave against them.

The only weapon: the threat of sanctions from Brussels. But beware: Italy is one of the founders of the European Union. The signal that comes from Rome says that crisis is continental. It will not be easy to defuse it.

The latest Israeli Gaza Massacre in which Apartheid Israeli soldiers shot and killed 116 unarmed Palestinian protesters and wounded 13,000, has divided the world into 2 camps, (1) the Good,those who have variously reacted with horror, condemnation and demands for action against the Israeli perpetrators, and (2) the Bad, those whose responses have been to support the perpetrators or have been otherwise deficient. Decent anti-racist people around the world have been galvanized by these latest Gaza Massacres to urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all its supporters after the example of the ultimately successful Boycotts and Sanctions against Apartheid South Africa and its supporters  after the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre in which 69 unarmed African protesters were killed and 220 wounded by Apartheid South African police.

Before presenting an updated, carefully-documented and alphabetically-organized compendium of such humane Good responses and of heartless or deficient Bad responses it is important to summarize the background to the latest Israeli Gaza Massacre .

1. Palestinian Genocide. In Palestine in 1880 there were about 500,000 Arab Palestinians and about 25,000 Jews (half of the latter being immigrants). Genocidally racist  Zionists have been responsible  for a Palestinian Genocide involving successive mass expulsions (800,000 in the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) and 400,000 in the 1967 Naksa (Setback) , ethnic cleansing of 90% of the land of Palestine, and in the century since the British invasion of Palestine about 2.3  million Palestinian deaths from violence (0.1 million) or from violently-imposed deprivation  (2.2 million) [1-16]. Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group;  b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” [17]. Genocidal “intent” is established by sustained ethnic cleansing action and more rarely by confession.  However the genocidal Zionists established “intent” by a remorseless, 100 year and continuing Palestinian Genocide and numerous statements of genocidal  intent from the Zionist leadership from racist psychopath Theodor Herzl to serial war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu [13, 14]. As estimated from under-5 infant mortality data, presently 4,200 Occupied Palestinians die avoidably from imposed deprivation  each year (2,900 in the Gaza Concentration Camp and 1,300 in West Bank ghettoes) [16], and an average of  about 550  are killed violently each year by racist Zionists [15]. There are 7 million Exiled Indigenous Palestinians who are forbidden to step foot in their own country. There are presently about 65 million refugees in the world of which half are Muslims and 7 million are Palestinians.

2. Poverty kills Palestinians. Poverty kills and Israeli Apartheid entrenches inequality and poverty in an ongoing Palestinian Genocide and a continuing war criminal Occupation. The per capita GDP for the West Bank and Gaza is $1,924 and $876, respectively, as compared to $39,000 for Apartheid Israel [18, 19]. The populations of the West Bank and the Gaza Concentration Camp are 3 million and 2 million, respectively, and thus the GDP of the West Bank and Gaza are  $5.772 billion and $1.752 billion, respectively, as compared to the GDP of Apartheid Israel  (population 8.8 million) of $342 billion [20]. Let W = annual West Bank avoidable deaths and let G = annual Gaza avoidable deaths so that W + G = 4,200. Now avoidable deaths are inversely proportional to per capita income and accordingly W/G = 876/1,924 and thus W= 876G/1,924 ; 876G/1,924 + G = 4,200 ;  876G + 1,924G = 4,200 x 1,924; 2,800G = 8,080, 800; and thus G = 2,886 and W = 1,314.

3. Apartheid Israel entrenches Palestinian poverty. The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8.8 million inhabitants as of first half-2018. Some 74.5% percent are Jews of all backgrounds (about 6.56 million), 20.9% are Arab of any religion other than Jewish (about 1.84 million), and the remaining 4.6% are non-Jewish and non-Arab (about 0.40 million) [20]. Apartheid Israel has a further 5 million Occupied Indigenous Palestinian subjects including 3 million confined to West Bank ghettoes and 2 million imprisoned in the Gaza Concentration Camp. A further 7 million Exiled Palestinians are excluded from stepping foot in Palestine on pain of death.  The 6.84 million Indigenous Palestinian subjects of Apartheid Israel represent 50% of the subjects of Apartheid Israel whereas Jewish Israelis represent 47% of the subjects.  However 74% of the Indigenous Palestinian subjects of Apartheid Israel have zero human rights (as defined by the Universal Charter of human rights [5]) and in particular are excluded from voting from the government ruling them i.e. they are subject to egregious Apartheid, noting that Apartheid is a crime against Humanity according to the UN and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the crime of Apartheid [21]

4. Apartheid Israel egregiously violates International Law. Through imposed deprivation, each year Apartheid Israel passively murders about 2,700 under-5 year old Palestinian  infants and passively murders 4,200 Occupied Palestinians in general who die avoidably from deprivation under Israeli Apartheid each year [16]. There is an approximately 10 year life expectancy gap between Occupied Palestinians and Israelis [1, 6], this grossly violating Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War that demand that an Occupier must provide life-sustaining food and medical services to the Occupied “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”  [22]. In its genocidal treatment of the Palestinians, US-, UK-, Canada-, France- and Australia-backed Apartheid Israel ignores numerous UN General Assembly Resolutions and UN Security Council Resolutions, the UN Genocide Convention, the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rights of the Child Convention, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and many other aspects of International Law [17, 18, 22-27]. In particular, the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (unanimously passed with Obama US abstaining but rejected by Apartheid Israel,  Trump America and US lackey Australia) stated that Israel’s settlements have no legal validity, and constitute flagrant violations of international law [28-30].

5. Reduction ad absurdum for occupied Palestinian Human Rights – let a civilized neutral country rule the Occupied Palestinians. The fundamental issue is Palestinian Human Rights that for 50-70 years have been comprehensively abrogated by an occupying rogue state, namely nuclear terrorist, racist Zionist-run, genocidally racist, democracy-by-genocide, neo-Nazi Apartheid Israel. Full human rights as set out in the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [26] can be very simply restored to the  Occupied Palestinians if the UN Security Council orders  that a UN-funded total military/police  control of  the Occupied Palestinian Territories is to be run by a suitable Occupying country that is a democracy and has absolutely no record of human rights abuse,  invasion of other countries or military alliances with such countries (e.g. some candidates  from West to East could be Guyana, Ireland, Mauritius, Nepal, and Timor L’Este). This arrangement would be in effective perpetuity under International Law and would not abrogate Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”. Indeed the 7 million Exiled Palestinians and 5 million Occupied Palestinians  abusively confined to the Gaza Concentration Camp or to West Bank ghettoes still have their Palestinian nationality as legally conceded by the UN recognition of the State of Palestine. The Occupied Palestinians would remain “Occupied” in perpetuity but would regain all Human Rights and administration of all their affairs – except for benign foreign military occupation of their land.  If the Zionist-subverted US were to veto such as UNSC Resolution then it would be insisting (as it presently does de facto) on continuing abrogation of all Palestinian Human Rights under neo-Nazi Apartheid Israel and would merit (as it presently does) utter condemnation and Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) by an indignant  international community.

6. Humane Unitary State solution. The Humanity-threatening awfulness of the Occupied Palestinians’ egregious and deadly poverty has been utterly avoidable. Decent Humanity demands all human rights for the Palestinians and a generous and genuine movement to maximize health, life expectancy, happiness, opportunity, and dignity for these sorely oppressed people.  The “2-State Solution” for Palestine has been a dishonest, disingenuous Western excuse for inaction and is now dead because of the ethnic cleansing of 90% of the land of Palestine. However, a peaceful , humane solution informed by the post-Apartheid South African experience is for a Unitary State in Palestine with return of all refugees, zero tolerance for racism, equal rights for all, all human rights for all, one-person-one-vote, justice, goodwill, reconciliation, airport-level security, nuclear weapons removal, internationally-guaranteed national security initially based on the present armed forces, and untrammelled access for all citizens to all of the Holy Land. It can and should happen tomorrow – but won’t because of the racist intransigence of US-, UK-, Canada- , Australia-, US Alliance- and EU-backed Apartheid Israel.

7. Repeated Gaza Massacres, the Palestinian Holocaust and the Palestinian Genocide.   These latest Gaza Massacres (116 unarmed protesters killed and 13,000 wounded by the neo-Nazi Israelis of whom one soldier was slightly injured by a rock) were preceded by even worse Gaza Massacres. In the 2008-2009 Gaza War (called Operation Cast Lead by the Israelis) about 1,400 Palestinians were killed and 5,300 were wounded. 13 Israelis were killed, this including 10 from friendly fire and 3 civilians. In 2012 in the 1-week Israeli Operation Pillar of Defense, 220 Palestinians were killed, half civilians, and 1,000 wounded, as compared to 2 Israeli soldiers killed and 20 wounded). In the 2014 Gaza Massacre (called Operation Protective Edge by the Israelis) 2,300 Palestinians were killed (including about 1,500 civilians) and 10,600 were wounded.  73 Israelis (66 of them soldiers) were killed [31-34]. Only 34 Israelis have ever been killed by Gaza rockets [35].

It gets worse. Avoidable Palestinian deaths from deprivation  since the British invasion of Palestine in WW1 total 2.2 million, the breakdown being 0.1 million in the WW1 Palestinian Famine [36-38]; 0.65 million Palestinian avoidable deaths in 1918-1948, assuming an average Palestinian population in this period of 0.9 million and an avoidable death rate of 24 per thousand, that obtaining  in British-ruled India in 1940-1947 [39];  1.35 million avoidable non-Israeli Palestinian deaths  from deprivation in 1950-2005) [16];  and 0.1 million avoidable non-Israeli Palestinian deaths  from deprivation in 2005-2018 (including  both Exiled and Occupied Palestinians) [16, 40]. In addition a further 0.1 million Palestinians have been violently killed by the British and Zionists in the ongoing Palestinian Genocide [1]. The ongoing Palestinian Genocide has been associated with 8 million refugees and 2.3 million Palestinian deaths from violence (0.1 million) or from imposed deprivation (2.2 million), a Palestinian Holocaust.

The Palestinian Holocaust and Palestinian Genocide (2.3 million killed) must be compared to the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed by the Nazis through violence or imposed deprivation)  [16, 41, 42].  Just as the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed) was part of a WW2 European Holocaust  (30 million Slavs, Jews and Roma killed by the German Nazis ) [16] and a bigger still WW2 Holocaust that also included the WW2 Chinese Holocaust  (35-40 million Chinese killed under the Japanese in 1937-1945) [16, 43, 44] and the WW2 Indian Holocaust (6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death by the British with Australian  complicity) [45-53], so the  Palestinian Holocaust (2.3 million premature deaths) is part of a 21st century Zionist-promoted, US Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide in which 32 million Muslims have been killed by violence (5 million) or imposed deprivation  (28 million) in 20 countries invaded by US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity [54, 55].

8. Disproportionality – comparing Palestinian/Zionist and Enemy subject/Nazi German military death ratios. The obscene disproportionality of 100,000 Palestinians killed violently by the British or Zionists since WW1 [1, 56] as compared to 4,000 Zionists killed by Palestinians in the same period [57-59] gives a Palestinian/Zionist violent death ratio of 100,000/4,000 = 25. By way of comparison with Apartheid Israel, the blood-soaked German Nazi leader Adolph Hitler recommended an enemy partisan/German military reprisal death ratio of 10. Thus  in 1995 Nazi SS Captain Erich Priebke was extradited from Argentina to Italy to face a war crimes trial over the March 24, 1944 execution of 335 Italian men and boys (about 75 of them Jewish) at the Ardeatine Caves south of Rome. The Ardeatine Massacre and an enemy partisan/German military reprisal death ratio of 10 had been ordered by arch-terrorist Adolph Hitler in retaliation for the killing of 33 German soldiers by Italian partisans the previous day [15, 60]. However if one includes Palestinian avoidable deaths from deprivation since the WW1 British invasion of Palestine then the Palestinian /Zionist death ratio becomes 2,300,000/4,000 = 575 as compared to Nazi leader Hitler’s advocated and executed death ratio of 10. Nazi is as Nazi does.

9. Gaza Massacres, Sharpeville Massacre and Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all its supporters.  In the notorious 1960 Sharpeville Massacre,  Apartheid South African police shot dead 69 unarmed African protesters and wounded 220 This was rightly condemned throughout the world and gave rise to rigorous, comprehensive, world-wide Sanctions and Boycotts against US-, UK- , Australia- and Apartheid Israel-backed Apartheid South Africa that were ultimately successful in ending the evil of Apartheid in South Africa [61]. Pro-Apartheid Trump America and US lackey Australia merit international Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as the only countries to vote against the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution to formally investigate the latest Israeli Gaza Massacres in which Apartheid Israeli soldiers have shot and killed 116unarmed Palestinian  protestors and injured about 13,000. No Israeli soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded and no Palestinians protestors penetrated the barbed wire surrounding the Gaza Concentration Camp. Just as a galvanized world successfully boycotted Apartheid South Africa  after the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre (69 unarmed African protestors killed and 220 wounded), so the world must respond to the latest Gaza Massacres  with Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all people, politicians, parties, companies, corporations and countries supporting this genocidally racist obscenity [62].
10. Set out below are updated, initial  global responses to the latest Gaza Massacres that fall into 2 categories, (A) Good, humane responses – an honour roll  of decent Humanity, and (B) Bad, offensive or deficient response to the US Jerusalem move and the latest Gaza Massacres – a  compendium of shameful complicity.

(A) Good, humane responses – an honour roll  of decent Humanity.

Abdel-Fattah (Australia). Randa Abdel-Fattah (Muslim Palestinian Australian lawyer, sociologist, academic, writer, author and activist):

“After seventy years, I’m done trying to persuade people of our cause. It needs no defence, no humanisation, no legitimising. My words are no longer an argument. We won the argument at Deir Yassin, in the UNRWA refugee camps, in the buried villages, stateless generations, the billions of Western dollars cashing up what the UN, South African diplomats and former anti-apartheid activists – including Jews – have described as an “apartheid state,” the live bullets at protestors in Gaza… They kill Palestinians with bullets, missiles and bombs. But they kill many more slowly, quietly, without a trace. What is the hashtag for death by occupation?… We start to speak, to write, and we do not know when or how to stop because it is unending. The Nakba is not an anniversary, it is repeated every day across the West Bank, Gaza, Israel, the refugee camps, in the diaspora. Seventy years of bearing witness. Seventy years of millions of testimonies. We write and we speak because it is all we have left”  and “I think it’s important to put this into context if we’re really to make sense of this conflict. They are protesting a brutal siege. They are an open-air prison – the largest concentration camp in the world, as it has been described by a prominent Israeli sociologist. They are about 1.8 million people in a size of about 355 square kilometres. There’s about 41km by 10-12km. They have a blockade for the last 11 years. Israel described it as economic warfare, where they were calculating the number of calories that Palestinians could live under, just short of starvation. They have a population of 75% under the age of 25. 51% of those are children. 97% of the water is poisonous. It is undrinkable. And why is that? Because Israel denied them a water desalination plant and bombed their water treatment facility in the 2008 and 2009 siege. It is an area that is trying to send a message to the world that, after 11 years of being besieged, of being traumatised, of having no sense of dignity or hope and being trapped – they’re not even allowed to leave – they’re trying to tell the world, “Wake up. It’s been 11 years now. What more do we have to do for you to take notice?” And they did it in a non-violent protest. And what were they met with? …  They were met with live fire by snipers… What would you have the Palestinians do? They… What broke me about this protest is not that they were resisting Israel. It’s not that they were sending a message to Israel. They were sending a message to the world. “This is our cage. We’re rattling this cage. Help us, because we are besieged and no-one is coming to our aid.” So that’s what, for me, is the message here. Listen to Palestinians.” (Randa Abdel-Fattah, “Living the Nakba: testimonies of trauma, loss, rage and hope”, ABC, 10 May 2018; ABC Q&A, “Weddings, Gaza and losing faith”, 21 May 2018.)

Akleh (US). Dr Elias Akleh (an Arab Palestinian American whose family was evicted from Haifa in the 1948 Nakba and evicted from the West Bank in the 1967 Naksa) on the latest Gaza Massacres:

“Israel’s history demonstrates clearly that Israel is a perpetual warmongering terrorist state since its illegal inception. Through an elitist, supremacist, racist and genocidal  path a majority of world Jewry had been brainwashed to adopt the terrorist Zionist ideology. This ideology had led Jewish terrorist groups to perpetrate hundreds of genocidal crimes against peaceful Palestinian villagers, totally wiping their towns off the world map, ethnically cleansing 800,000 Palestinians out of their homeland and establishing the terrorist state of Israel, that has, and is still violating hundreds of UNSC resolutions, waging wars of terrorism and aggression against its Arab neighbors, and is perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinian civilians, last of which was the deliberate murder of 63 civilian peaceful Palestinian demonstrators and the severe wounding of 3000 others in mere one day of Monday May 14th… Since the beginning of the March of Return, March 30th, until today Israeli army with 100 snipers on Gaza border had intentionally and deliberately murdered 116 peacefully demonstrating Palestinians and wounded more than 12,000 others including press reporters and medics. They have used tear and chemical gas, rubber coated bullets, and exploding hollow-pointed bullets to perpetrate yet a new massacre against Palestinians. This massacre reflects the terrorist nature of Israel. Israel was founded on terror and genocide against Arabs especially against Palestinians.” ( Elias Akleh, “With Israel peace has no chance”, Countercurrents, 21 May 2018.)

Albanese (Australia). Anthony Albanese (leading Australian Labor Opposition figure and Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure) criticizing the Australian “No” vote against UN Human Rights Council  investigation of the Gaza Killings:

“International law requires a proportionate response, and those people who have guns on one side and, on the other side has rocks, the people with guns have a responsibility to act in a way which is proportionate and people have seen this acted out on their television screen in the last week. Certainly, I think the government needs to explain why it has opposed this independent investigation.” (Amy Remeikis, “Albanese demands explanation why Australia voted against Gaza inquiry”, The Guardian, 20 May 2018.)

Al Hussein (Jordan).  Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) in a speech to the Special Session of the Human Rights Council (18 May 2018) :

“Appalling recent events in Gaza have called this Council into Special Session. Since the protests began on 30 March, 87 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli security forces in the context of the demonstrations, including 12 children; 29 others, including three children, were killed in other circumstances. And over 12,000 people have been injured, more than 3,500 of them by live ammunition. The violence reached a peak on Monday 14 May, when 43 demonstrators were killed by Israeli forces – and the number sadly continues to climb, as some of the 1,360 demonstrators injured with live ammunition that day succumb to their wounds. These people, many of whom were completely unarmed, were shot in the back, in the chest, in the head and limbs with live ammunition, as well as rubber-coated steel bullets and tear-gas canisters. Israeli forces also killed a further 17 Palestinians outside the context of the five demonstration hot spots. Together, this figure of 60 is the highest one-day death toll in Gaza since the 2014 hostilities… on the Israeli side, one soldier was reportedly wounded, slightly, by a stone… Israel, as an occupying power under international law, is obligated to protect the population of Gaza and ensure their welfare. But they are, in essence, caged in a toxic slum from birth to death; deprived of dignity; dehumanised by the Israeli authorities to such a point it appears officials do not even consider that these men and women have a right, as well as every reason, to protest.” (Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, “Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the deteriorating human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein”, UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 18 May 2018.)

Amnesty International (International NGO). Amnesty International:

“We are witnessing an abhorrent violation of Int law and human rights. 38 confirmed dead, including children/minors, with close to 2000 people injured in Gaza. Many are reporting injuries to the head and chest. Over 500 injured with live ammunition. This horror must end now” and “ Amnesty International is dismayed and alarmed at the mass killings and injuries of Palestinians in the context of the “Great March of Return” protests in the Gaza Strip. In their response to these protests, since 30 March, Israeli forces have killed at least 102 Palestinians, including at least 12 children, two journalists and one paramedic. As many as 60 people died in one day alone, on 14 May, during protests commemorating 70 years of Palestinian displacement and dispossession. Eyewitness testimonies, and video and photographic evidence suggest that many were deliberately killed or injured, while posing no imminent threat to Israeli soldiers and snipers. Israeli forces have used high-velocity military weapons and ammunitions to disperse protesters, injuring approximately 3,600 Palestinians, including men, women and children – a shocking and appalling number. Many who have not died have suffered life-changing injuries, and will likely face further complications, infections and some form of physical disability. Others, including health workers treating the injured, have suffered tear gas inhalation, while ambulances have been partially damaged. Hospitals are struggling to cope with the volume of serious injuries without adequate resources and chronic shortages of fuel, electricity and medical supplies caused mainly by Israel’s illegal blockade” (Amnesty International, Amnesty Press, Twitter, 14 May 2018; Amnesty International: “Amnesty International public statement. Israel/OPT: International Commission of Inquiry needed to ensure accountability for Israel’s deplorable use of excessive force in response to protests”, 18 May 2018. )

Anti-racist Jewish, Indigenous & Palestinian activist writers (Australia).  Michael Brull (anti-racist Jewish Australian writer), Amy McQuire (Darumbal Indigenous Australian and South Sea Islander journalist), Nayuka Gorrie(Kurnai/Gunai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta Indigenous Australian freelance writer), Meriki Onus (Gunnai Gunditjmara Indigenous Australian woman  commentator and activist), Randa Abdel Fattah (Muslim Palestinian Australian academic researcher and author of 12 books), Samah Sabawi (ia Palestinian-Australian-Canadian writer, commentator, author and playwright), Bassam Dally ( a Palestinian-Australian academic, commentator, founding member of The Australian Friends of Palestine Association and vice-president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy network), Jordy Silverstein (anti-racist Jewish Australian academic, author and historian) and Jordanna Moroney( an anti-racist Masorti Jewish Australian activist for refugee human rights):

“An open letter about Jessica Mauboy’s decision to perform a concert in Israel, by Michael Brull, Amy McQuire, Nayuka Gorrie, Meriki Onus, Randa Abdel Fattah, Samah Sabawi, Bassam Dally, Jordy Silverstein and Jordanna Moroney. Dear Jessica, … We are writing this letter to express our deep hurt and disappointment at your post on Instagram recently, in which you announced you were performing in Israel. We know you are there for Israel Calling, featuring a free concert in Tel Aviv with 25 performers from 43 countries in the lead-up to Eurovision. According to the Jerusalem Post it is “run in conjunction with the Foreign Ministry, the Tourism Ministry and Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael-Jewish National Fund… It is a propaganda coup, particularly at a time when artists from around the world have boycotted Israel, due to its treatment of the Palestinians. As the Aboriginal writers of this letter know, the oppression of Palestinians under Israeli occupation has many similarities to our own situation. We share a history of settler-colonialism, and this land that you routinely celebrate on Australia Day, when you sing the national anthem, is founded on the dispossession of our people and the destruction of our traditional lands… 20 Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli snipers. 750 were wounded with fire from live ammunition. During the second week, another 25,000 Palestinian protesters showed up, according to Israel’s army. About nine more were shot dead, and another 300 were wounded by live ammunition fired by Israeli snipers. … This is also an opportunity for you. Where do you stand on millions of disfranchised Palestinians, living under military occupation? Where do you stand on the destruction of Gaza? Where do you stand on the open, brazen massacres of unarmed protesters [from 30 March 2018] that have again disgusted the world? Do you stand with the Foreign Ministry, as it uses you to whitewash its crimes against humanity? The Aboriginal community has largely supported you for all your achievements. But if we continually make a stand for you, why can’t you make a stand for those who are suffering?” (Michael Brull, Amy McQuire, Nayuka Gorrie, Meriki Onus, Randa Abdel Fattah, Samah Sabawi, Bassam Dally, Jordy Silverstein and Jordanna Moroney: “An open letter to Jessica Mauboy: don’t paint over oppression with hearts and rainbows”, New Matilda, 2 May 2018. )

Ardern (New Zealand). Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand Prime Minister):

“You will recall at the time the United States announced they would be moving their representation to Jerusalem we stated at that time strongly that we did not believe that would take us closer to peace and it hasn’t. As we’ve seen, the results of the protests along the border at Gaza has been devastating. It is the right of any nation to defend their border, but this is a devastating, one-sided loss of life. We would condemn the violence that has occurred and it’s plain to see the effects of this decision and the ramifications are wide reaching.” (Claire Trevett, “PM Jacinta Ardern: Gaza deaths show US Embassy move to Jerusalem hurt chance for peace”,  New Zealand Herald, 15 May 2018.)

Ashrawi (Palestine). Dr Hanan Ashrawi (PLO Executive Committee Member) on latest Gaza Massacres:

“On the same day that the United States officially relocated its embassy to occupied Jerusalem, Israel murdered 55 unarmed Palestinians, including children, and injured 2,000 more who were protesting America’s illegal and disastrous move, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba (“Catastrophe”) and affirming the right of return for Palestinians. We urgently appeal to all members of the international community to stop the bloodshed against the captive people in Gaza immediately. We also urge the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the ICC to convene and investigate Israel’s gross violations and flagrant war crimes. This deliberate massacre, as well as other massacres committed by Israel, should not go unpunished.” (Dr Hanan Ashrawi, “PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi appeals to the international community to stop Israel’s ongoing massacre in Gaza”, Embassy of the State of Palestine, 15 May 2018.)

Baroud (Palestine). Dr Ramzy Baroud (journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle):

“The Israelis and their American friends are dancing. They are celebrating while my people have dug 58 more graves just today. They have danced on our graves for far too long.” (Ramzy Baroud, “Ramzy Baroud speaking at the rally for Gaza in Sydney (VIDEO)” and  “60 Palestinians were killed in Gaza on May 15, simply for protesting and demanding their Right of Return as guaranteed by international law. 50 more were killed since March 30, the start of the ‘Great March of Return’, which marks Land Day. Nearly 10,000 have been wounded and maimed in between these two dates. ‘Israel has the right to defend itself’, White House officials announced, paying no heed to the ludicrousness of the statement when understood within the current context of an unequal struggle. Peaceful protesters were not threatening the existence of Israel; rock throwing kids were not about to overwhelm hundreds of Israeli snipers, who shot, killed and wounded Gaza youngsters with no legal or moral boundary whatsoever … The world watched in horror, and even western media failed to hide the full ugly truth from its readers. The two acts – of lavish parties and heartbreaking burials – were beamed all over the world, and the already struggling American reputation sank deeper and deeper. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may have thought he had won. Comforted by his rightwing government and society on the one hand, Trump and his angry UN bully, Nikki Haley, on the other, he feels invulnerable. But he should rethink his power-driven logic. When Gazan youth stood bare-chested at the border fence, falling one drove after the other, they crossed a fear barrier that no generation of Palestinians has ever crossed. And when people are unafraid, they can never be subdued or defeated.” (Ramzy Baroud, 15 May 2018; Ramzy Baroud, “Israel’s premature celebration: Gazans have crossed the fear barrier”, Countercurrents, 23 May 2018.)

Berger (UK). Luciana Berger (an anti-racist Jewish  British Labour Co-operative politician who has been the Member of Parliament for Liverpool Wavertree since 2010) writing on Twitter:

“The hugely inflammatory decision by the US to move its embassy to Jerusalem… [Gaza scenes] horrific… it is vital that there is urgent restraint in order to immediately halt the loss of civilian life. The voices of those in Israel who advocate for peace must not be drowned out. ” (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018.)

Brull (Australia). Michael Brull (anti-racist Jewish Australian scholar and writer):

“From 30 March, Palestinians in Gaza have held weekly protests, demanding the right to return to their homes, and for an end to the blockade of Gaza. Both demands are in accordance with international law. Israel has responded each week by shooting hundreds of unarmed, peaceful protesters… As the world reeled in horror at week after week of Israeli massacres of unarmed, peaceful protesters – who at the most, tried to cut a fence or use slingshots to take down drones firing tear gas at them – Australian politicians have been mostly silent…Australia and the US were the only countries to vote against the [UN Human Rights Council] motion to investigate Israel’s attacks on protesters… Australia has a long record of complicity in Israeli war crimes and oppression of the Palestinians. Indeed, in March it similarly voted against five motions at the Human Rights Council upholding the rights of Palestinians. For example, in a vote on Palestinian self-determination, 43 countries voted in favour, the Democratic Republic of Congo abstained, and Australia and the US voted against. Most Australians would have no idea about that. And they wouldn’t know about what Israel does to Gaza with Australian support.” (Michael Brull, “Australia’s shameful complicity with Israeli atrocities, and the Media’s determination to cover it up” , New Matilda, 23 May 2018.)

B’Tselem (Israel). B’Tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories):

“The demonstrations held in Gaza today came as no surprise. Israel had plenty of time to come up with alternate approaches for dealing with the protests, apart from firing live ammunition. The fact that live gunfire is once again the sole measure that the Israeli military is using in the field evinces appalling indifference towards human life on the part of senior Israeli government and military officials. B’Tselem calls for an immediate halt to the killing of Palestinian demonstrators. If the relevant officials do not issue an order to stop the lethal fire, the soldiers in the field must refuse to comply with these manifestly unlawful open-fire orders.” (B’Tselem, “B’Tselem: Firing live ammunition at Gaza demonstrators shows appalling indifference to human life”, B’Tselem, 14 May 2018.)

Corbyn (UK). Jeremy Corbyn (UK Labour Opposition leader):

 “[Palestinian deaths an] outrage… hold those responsible to account… slaughter…  [IDF has] wanton disregard for international law… [Western governments must] demand an end to the multiple abuses of human and political rights Palestinians face on a daily basis, the 11-year siege of Gaza, the continuing 50-year occupation of Palestinian territory and the ongoing expansion of illegal settlements.”  (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018.)

Countries boycotting the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem.  Those 50 countries with embassies in Apartheid Israel (black mark) which were invited but  which did not attend (good mark) included Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan , Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Myanmar, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and the United Kingdom ([36]. Noa Landau, “These are the countries planning to participate in Israel’s celebrations of U.S. Embassy move”, Haaretz, 16 May 2016. )

Di Natale (Australia). Dr Richard Di Natale (Leader of the Australian Greens):

“The Australian Greens condemn in the strongest possible terms this latest example of the Israeli military’s excessive use of force. Yesterday marked the deadliest day in Gaza since the 2014 war, with more than 50 Palestinians killed. We are distressed that almost 100 mostly unarmed Palestinian protestors have reportedly been killed by Israeli forces since the end of March on the border with Gaza, including at least four minors and two journalists. It is deplorable that the Liberal and Labor parties have remained silent in the face of the Israeli Government’s excessive use of force. What will it take for them to speak up? They must condemn this disproportionate response against Palestinians exercising their legitimate and important right to engage in non-violent protest. Donald Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem is a body blow to the peace process and the Palestinian people. Trump is intent on inflaming tensions, yet the Turnbull Government has repeatedly refused to stand with the rest of the world and speak out against this move. It’s well past time for both the old parties to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.” ( “Greens condemn Palestinian deaths at Gaza border”, The Greens, 15 May 2018).

Doherty (Ireland). Pearse Doherty (Finance Spokesperson for Sinn Féin and Teachta Dála (lower House MP) for Donegal):

“If Israel continues to act with impunity, we will continue to see the carnage we witnessed on our televisions yesterday and are likely to continue to see in the weeks ahead. It is time for countries to make a stand. The Government made a stand in the case of a Russian diplomat [expulsion after the Skripal Affair] , so what will it take for the Government to say ‘No more’? What will it take for this proud country to take a stand, as an international independent country, by telling the Israeli ambassador it is time to pack his bags?” (Fiach Kelly, “Dail divided on response to violence on Israel-Gaza border””, Irish Times, 16 May 2018).

Erdogan (Turkey). Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkish President) in response to the latest 2018 Gaza Massacres (the Turkish ambassador was withdrawn but was frisked by Israeli goons at the airport) :

“Netanyahu is the PM of an apartheid state that has occupied a defenceless people’s lands for 60+ yrs in violation of UN resolutions, He has the blood of Palestinians on his hands and can’t cover up crimes by attacking Turkey.” (“Turkey-Israel row: video of airport frisking deepens tensions”, Al Jazeera, 16 May 2018.)

Erekat (Palestine). Saeb Erekat (senior West Bank Palestinian official):

 “These war crimes should not go unpunished and the international community has a responsibility to provide international protection for the Palestinian people.” (“Dozens killed in Gaza clashes as US opens Jerusalem embassy”, SBS News, 15 May 2018.)

France. France (one of the UN Security Council’s 5 permanent members:

“ [condemned] the violence of Israeli armed forces against demonstrators.” (Chris Baynes, “US “blocks UN motion” calling for  investigation into Israeli killing of Gaza protesters”, Independent, 15 May 2018.)

Freeland (Canada). Chrystia Freeland (Canadian foreign affairs minister:

“It is inexcusable that civilians, journalists + children have been victims. All parties to the conflict have a responsibility to ensure civilians are protected.” ( Peter Zimonjic, “Freeland calls on “all parties” involved in Gaza violence to protect civilians””, CBC News, 14 May 2018)

Gleeson (Australia). Lisa Gleeson (Australian Green Left Weekly writer):

“In just over 24 hours on May 14 and 15, the single greatest number of deaths and injuries of Gazans at the hands of the Israeli military since the start of the Great March of Return protests on March 30 occurred. Israel’s latest crimes must be a catalyst to strengthen the struggle for Palestinian freedom… The sheer horror and scale of the deaths and injuries could be a turning point in responses to Israeli crimes — if the global solidarity movement is able to capitalise on widespread disgust and anger, and strengthen pressure… In Australia, it has been Greens politicians who have condemned Israel’s actions. Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon and leader Richard Di Natale issued statements condemning Israeli attacks and the failure of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to criticise Israel, with which Australia has arms deals worth billions of dollars. For 70 years, Palestinians have suffered ongoing Israeli attacks, theft of their land and resources, the destruction of their communities, discriminatory laws, dwindling access to basic infrastructure and amenities and frequent deadly violence by a heavily armed military. Yet Palestinians continue to demand the right to return to lands from which they were expelled, and an end to Israel’s violence and apartheid law. It is well beyond time the world backs their demands — Israel’s latest deadly crimes must become a turning point in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.” (Lisa Gleeson, “Could Israel’s Gaza Massacre be a turning point?”, Green Left Weekly, 18 May 2018.)

Horowitz (US). Adam Horowitz (see “Mondoweiss” , a news website that is co-edited by anti-racist Jewish American journalists Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz and is a part of the Center for Economic Research and Social Change).

Independent Jewish Voices (UK). Dr Anthony Isaacs, Dr Vivienne Jackson, Dr Katy Fox-Hodess, Dr Tamar Steinitz, Professor Jacqueline Rose, Ann Jungman, Merav Pinchassoff, Professor Adam Fagan, Professor Francesa Klug (UK Independent Jewish Voices steering group):

“Since 30 March, each week has seen more protests by Gazans at the border with Israel and more killings of largely unarmed protesters by Israeli snipers using live ammunition. As of the morning of 15 May, Nakba Day, more than 100 Palestinians have been killed and some thousands injured. The position has been aggravated by the provocation of the opening of a new US embassy in Jerusalem, hammering another nail into the coffin of an already moribund peace process. The Independent Jewish Voices steering group wishes to express our horror at the flagrant disregard for the human rights of the Palestinians and the norms of international law, and our support for those many thousands who have been demonstrating their opposition around the world. We call upon the UK government to condemn the actions of the Israeli authorities, to demand an independent inquiry into the use of force on the Gaza border, to make clear that the UK embassy will remain in Tel Aviv, and to redouble all diplomatic efforts to bring the occupation to an end.” (Letters, “The Guardian”, 16 May 2018.)

Ingres (France, Doctors Without Borders). Marie-Elisabeth Ingres (Palestinian- treating Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) representative in the Occupied Palestinian Territories):

“What happened today is unacceptable and inhuman. The death toll provided this evening by Gaza health authorities—55 dead and 2,271 wounded—including 1,359 wounded with live ammunition, is staggering. It is unbearable to witness such a massive number of unarmed people being shot in such a short time. Our medical teams are working around the clock, as they have done since April 1, providing surgical and postoperative care to men, women, and children, and they will continue to do so tonight, tomorrow, and as long as they are needed. In one of the hospitals where we are working, the chaotic situation is comparable to what we observed after the bombings of the 2014 war, with a colossal influx of injured people in a few hours, completely overwhelming the medical staff. Our teams carried out more than 30 surgical interventions today, sometimes on two or three patients in the same operating theater, and even in the corridors. This bloodbath is the continuation of the Israeli army’s policy during the last seven weeks: shooting with live ammunition at demonstrators, on the assumption that anyone approaching the separation fence is a legitimate target. Most of the wounded will be condemned to suffer lifelong injuries.As new demonstrations are announced for tomorrow, the Israeli army must stop its disproportionate use of violence against Palestinian protesters.” (Marie-Elisabeth Ingres, “”Unacceptable and inhuman” violence by Israeli army against Palestinian protesters in Gaza”, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), 14 May 2018.)

Israeli eminent persons (Israel). Eminent Israeli persons, namely Avraham Burg (former speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency),  Prof Nurit Peled Elhanan (2001 co-laureate of the Sakharov prize), Prof David Harel (vice-president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and recipient of the 2004 Israel Prize), Prof Yehoshua Kolodny (recipient of the 2010 Israel prize), Alex Levac (photographer and recipient of the 2005 Israel prize),  Prof Judd Ne’eman (director and recipient of the 2009 Israel prize), Prof Zeev Sternhell (historian and recipient of the 2008 Israel prize), Prof David Shulman (recipient of the 2016 Israel prize) and David Tartakover (artist and recipient of the 2002 Israel prize):

 “ We, Israelis who wish our country to be safe and just, are appalled and horrified by the massive killing of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza (Reports, 15 May). None of the demonstrators posed any direct danger to the state of Israel or to its citizens. The killing of over 50 demonstrators and the thousands more wounded are reminiscent of the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 in South Africa. The world acted then. We call upon decent members of the international community to act by demanding that those who commanded such shootings be investigated and tried. The current leaders of the Israeli government are responsible for the criminal policy of shooting at unarmed demonstrators. The world must intervene to stop the ongoing killing.” (Letters, “The Guardian”, 16 May 2018.)

Larison (US). Daniel Larison (writer for The American Conservative):

 “The Trump administration’s response to today’s massacre of unarmed protesters in Gaza by Israeli forces was as appalling as we would expect it to be: the Trump administration blamed Hamas for the deaths of dozens of Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers on Monday during mass protests along the boundary fence, the deadliest day of violence since the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. We know that the Trump administration consistently indulges U.S. clients and encourages them in their worst behavior, but the refusal to hold Israel accountable for obvious, egregious crimes like this one is nonetheless breathtaking and despicable. Hamas bears responsibility for its own crimes and misrule, but it is ludicrous to hold them responsible when Israeli forces shoot live ammunition into a crowd of unarmed people. The administration’s attempt to shift the blame from the government that killed nearly five dozen unarmed protesters and wounded hundreds more to anyone else is similar to their responses to Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen: ignore them for as long as possible, absurdly claim that the client state is acting in “self-defense,” and when all else fails find some other group or government to blame for things that the client has done. Refusing to hold Israel responsible for its crimes guarantees that there will be more of them in the weeks and months to come. As long as the administration doesn’t object to this excessive and illegal treatment of Palestinians, the Israeli government will assume that it has Trump’s full support and will keep doing more of the same. The Trump administration is giving Israel a green light to shoot Palestinian protesters, and its determination to ensure that there is “no daylight” between our two governments means that there is practically nothing that the Israeli government can do that this administration won’t tolerate.” (Daniel Larison, “The Trump Administration’s despicable response to the Gaza Massacre”, The American Conservative, 14 May 2018.)

Latin American artists (Latin America). Latin American artists ( more than 500 including  poets, painters, rappers, theatre directors, filmmakers, actors, writers, and musicians from 17 Latin American countries) signed a letter supporting boycott of Apartheid Israel:

“[pledge to] reject any invitation to perform in Israel or at any event financed by this government that leads to the ‘normalisation’ of apartheid, that is, where the regime of segregation maintained by the state of Israel against the Palestinian people is not denounced.” (Federico Fuentes, “South America: Israel’s massacre in Gaza denounced, support for BDS grows”, Green Left Weekly, 17 May 2018).

Le Drian (France). Jean-Yves Le Drian (French Foreign Minister) speaking to the French Parliament:

“The situation in the Middle East is explosive, violence is doing the talking, war could loom. We are committed to the security of Israel but Israel’s security cannot justify this level of violence… We [also] have a disagreement about the method. Because in both cases [including  Jerusalem embassy] the United States decided to act unilaterally. ” (Amanda Holpuch  and Matthew Weaver, “Gaza: Nakba Day protests as Palestinians bury those killed in embassy unrest – live updates”, The Guardian,  16 May 2018)

Levy (Israel). Gideon Levy (anti-racist Jewish Israeli writer for Haaretz ):

“When will the moment come in which the mass killing of Palestinians matters anything to the right? When will the moment come in which the massacre of civilians shocks at least the left-center? If 60 people slain don’t do it, perhaps 600? Will 6,000 jolt them? When will the moment come in which a pinch of human feeling arises, if only for a moment, toward the Palestinians? Sympathy? At what moment will someone call a halt, and suggest compassion, without being branded an eccentric or an Israel hater? When will there be a moment in which someone admits that the slaughterer has, after all, some responsibility for the slaughter, not only the slaughtered, who are of course responsible for their own slaughter? Sixty people killed didn’t matter to anyone – perhaps 600 would? How about 6,000? Will Israel find all the excuses and justifications then also? Will the blame be laid on the slain people and their “dispatchers” even then, and not a word of criticism, mea culpa, sorrow, pity or guilt will be heard?” (Gideon Levy, “60 dead in Gaza and the end of Israeli concscience”, Haaretz, 17 May 2018)

Luther (UK, Amnesty International). Philip Luther (Amnesty International, Research and Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa):

“This is another horrific example of the Israeli military using excessive force and live ammunition in a totally deplorable way. This is a violation of international standards, in some instances committing what appear to be wilful killings constituting war crimes. Today’s footage from Gaza is extremely troubling, and as violence continues to spiral out of control, the Israeli authorities must immediately rein in the military to prevent the further loss of life and serious injuries. Only last month, Amnesty International called on the international community to stop the delivery of arms and military equipment to Israel. The rising toll of deaths and injuries today only serves to highlight the urgent need for an arms embargo. While some protestors may have engaged in some form of violence, this still does not justify the use of live ammunition. Under international law, firearms can only be used to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury.” ( Philip Luther, “Israel/OPT: use of excessive force in Gaza an abhorrent violation of international law”, Amnesty International, 14 May 2018)

Mabaya (South Africa). Ndivhuwo Mabaya (South African Department of International Relations spokesperson) re the indefinite recall of the South Africa Ambassador Sisa Ngombane in response to the latest 2018 Gaza Massacres (shades of the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre in Apartheid South Africa)(2018):

“Given the indiscriminate and gravity of the latest Israeli attack, the South African government has taken a decision to recall Ambassador Sisa Ngombane with immediate effect until further notice… [government condemned] in the strongest terms possible the latest act of violent aggression carried out by Israeli armed forces along the Gaza border. [This] led to the deaths of over 40 [people] killed following a peaceful protest against the provocative inauguration of the US embassy in Jerusalem… [Israeli Defence Force] must withdraw from the Gaza Strip and bring to an end the violent and destructive incursions into Palestinian territories. South Africa maintains further that the violence in the Gaza Strip will stand in the way of rebuilding Palestinian institutions and infrastructure.” (Kaveel Singh, “SA pulls ambassador out of Israel over Gaza violence”, News24, 14 May 2018.)

Macron (France). Emmanuel Macron (French President) in a  statement to war criminal Netanyahu according to the Elysee Palace:

“He expressed his very deep concern about the situation in Gaza, condemned the violence and underlined the importance of protecting civilian populations and of the right to protest peacefully.” (“France’s Macron tells Netanyahu Palestinians have right to protest peacefully”, Reuters, 16 May 21081)

Maduro (Venezuela). Nicolas Maduro (President of Venezuela that cut diplomatic relations with Apartheid Israel during the 2009 Gaza Massacre):

“Today we are all Palestine. Their dead, injured and hopes are ours. We condemn atrocity and measures taken by US and Israel. Long live Palestine! Long live a free and independent Palestine!” (Federico Fuentes, “South America: Israel’s massacre in Gaza denounced, support for BDS grows”, Green Left Weekly, 17 May 2018)

Mansour (Palestine). Riyad Mansour (ambassador of the permanent observer mission of the State of Palestine to the UN):

“We condemn in the strongest terms this odious massacre committed by Israel occupation forces… [Israeli] occupation is the main source of violence in the region, for those who do not acknowledge it live in a different reality. Let us investigate what’s happening on the ground… Palestinians will accept the findings come what may…. [US embassy move to Jerusalem]  provocation… [Trump allows Israel to]  commit more crimes against the Palestinian people [with] impunity… [The US] should not close their eyes to situation on the ground.” (Amanda Holpuch  and Matthew Weaver, “Gaza: Nakba Day protests as Palestinians bury those killed in embassy unrest – live updates”, The Guardian,  16 May 2018)

McGoldrick (Ireland, UN). Jamie McGoldrick (UN Humanitarian Coordinator,  Occupied Palestinian Territory) (18 May 2018):

“The situation in Gaza is devastating and the crisis is far from over. For every person killed and injured this week and those before, there is a family and a network of friends affected.” (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Occupied Palestinian Territory, “50 Palestinians reported injured during demonstrations in Gaza on  first Friday of Ramadan”, 18 May 2018)

Mondoweiss (US). Mondoweiss (a news website that is co-edited by anti-racist Jewish American journalists Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz and is a part of the Center for Economic Research and Social Change) on Gaza killings (14 May 2014):

“Today is unfolding as a horrifying and tragic day in Palestine. The Israeli military has opened fire on Gaza protesters as the U.S. and Israeli governments prepare to mark the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Today has been the deadliest day in Gaza since the end of Operation Protective Edge in 2014. According to the Gaza Ministry of Health (as of 21:00 GMT): 58 killed, including 7 minors and 1 paramedic; 2,771 injured – including 225 minors, 11 journalists, 17 paramedics; 130 in serious and critical condition; 1,359 shot by Israeli soldiers using live Israeli ammunition. Since the beginning of the Great March of Return on March 30th, 107 Palestinians have been killed, almost 3,400 protesters have been shot with live ammunition, and almost 13,000 injured.” (“Live blog: massacre in Gaza as US and Israel celebrate embassy move to Jerusalem”, Mondoweiss, 14 May 2018)

Moorehead (UK). Jennifer Moorehead (Save the Children’s Country Director for the Occupied Palestinian Territory): “All parties must ensure that children are protected in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and other relevant international law. We are deeply concerned by the high number of children who have been hit by live ammunition and we agree with the High Commissioner for Human Rights that this could suggest an excessive use of force and may amount to unlawful killing and maiming, We support the UN Secretary General’s call for independent investigations to be carried out and any perpetrators to be held to account. We strongly urge all protests to remain peaceful, and call on all sides to tackle the long-term causes of this conflict and promote dignity and security for both Israelis and Palestinians…Gaza has been under an Israeli air, sea and land blockade for more than 10 years and has suffered three wars from which it has never fully recovered. This has meant an already very difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza has gone from bad to worse with almost every aspect of life – from employment, education and electricity to health and sanitation – being negatively impacted. The result has been devastating for the children of Gaza  – physically and psychologically. Many have been injured, and many more have seen their parents or loved ones either hurt at the protests, or suffering increasing hardship in their daily lives. Save the Children is deeply concerned at the prospect of further violence and we fear that even more children could be injured or lose their lives. Children and families are telling our staff that they are losing hope of conditions ever improving in Gaza. We’re calling for an urgent lifting of the Israeli blockade that has crippled the economy and for increased donor engagement to alleviate the urgent daily needs of almost two million people in Gaza.” (Save the Children, “More than 250-children in Gaza shot with live ammunition as protests escalate” Save the Children, 11 May 2018)

Morales (Bolivia). Evo Morales (President of Bolivia that cut diplomatic relations with Apartheid Israel during the 2009 Gaza Massacre ):  “Strongly condemned” the brutal Israeli crackdown on Gaza protesters, tweeting on May 15: “Bolivia condemns the genocidal reaction of the Israeli army that slaughters Palestinian brothers in cold blood. More than 50 dead, 2000 injured in protest against arbitrary transfer of US Embassy to Jerusalem. Bolivia rejects and strongly condemns the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem. Again, the US violates international law and covers the crimes of the state of Israel. #PalestinaLibre.” (Federico Fuentes, “South America: Israel’s massacre in Gaza denounced, support for BDS grows”, Green Left Weekly, 17 May 2018)

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) (Palestine). Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) re a football boycott of Apartheid Israel :

“Dear Lionel Messi and Argentina National Football Team, We urge you to cancel your friendly match with Israel, scheduled for June 9, 2018, due to Israel’s long record of human rights abuses, on and off the field. Israel arrests, harasses and kills Palestinian players. It destroys Palestinian stadiums and denies Palestinian footballers the right to travel to play. And, Israeli football leagues include clubs based in illegal Israeli settlements built on stolen Palestinian land . Israeli snipers killed more than 40 unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and injured thousands. Mohammed Khalil, a Palestinian footballer who was demonstrating with thousands for their basic human rights, was shot by a sniper in both legs, ending his football career. This is not the first time Israeli bullets have ended Palestinians’ football careers. And, it won’t be the last under Israel’s violent regime of occupation and apartheid. Messi, your game with Israel is political. The Israeli government will use it to cover-up its brutal attacks on Palestinians, on and off the field. There is nothing “friendly” about military occupation and apartheid. Don’t play Israel until Palestinians’ human rights are respected. Don’t team up with Israeli apartheid!” (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), “Tell Argentina and Lionel Messi: there is #NothingFriendly abpout Israel shooting Palestinian footballers”, BDS, 15 May 2018).

Polya (Australia). Dr Gideon Polya (anti-racist Jewish Australian scientist, writer, artist and humanitarian activist):

“Pro-Apartheid Trump America and US lackey Australia merit international Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as the only countries to vote against the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution to formally investigate the latest Israeli Gaza Massacres in which Apartheid Israeli soldiers have shot [and killed]  116 unarmed Palestinian  protestors and injured about 13,000. No Israeli soldiers have been killed or wounded and no Palestinians protestors penetrated the barbed wire surrounding the Gaza Concentration Camp. Just as a galvanized world successfully boycotted Apartheid South Africa  after the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre (69 unarmed African protestors killed and 220 wounded), so the world must respond to the latest Gaza Massacres  with BDS against Apartheid Israel and all people and countries supporting this genocidally racist obscenity.”  (Polya, “Boycott Pro-Apartheid US & Australia For Backing Israeli Gaza Massacres, Apartheid, Theft & Palestinian Genocide”, Countercurrents, 22 May 2018).

Riemer (Australia). Dr Nick Riemer (Australian literature and linguistics academic):

“Australia, Israel’s best friend. On his visit to Australia in 2017, Netanyahu said that ‘there is no better friend [than Australia] for the state of Israel’. He wasn’t greatly exaggerating. The UN committee that drafted the 1947 Partition resolution creating Israel was chaired by an Australian, HV Evatt, as local politicians often remind us. A glance at Australia’s recent UN voting record speaks volumes about Australia’s position on the “extreme fringe” of world opinion on Israel. In a 2012 vote making Palestine a UN non-member state, we abstained. In 2013, when a record 162 countries called for a stop to “all Israeli settlement activities in all of the occupied territories” and condemned any attempts to desecrate the Al-Aqsa Mosque, we abstained. We even voted against a UN resolution declaring the following year, 2014, the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Faced with a proposal in the UN Security Council demanding Israel end the occupation of Palestinian territories within two years, we abstained. At the same time, the Abbott government took the extraordinary step of ruling out using the term ‘occupied’ when describing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. In 2016, Australia indicated   it didn’t support the UN Security Council resolution condemning the construction and expansion of settlements. Last year, when the UN passed a resolution in December condemning the projected move of the US embassy to Jerusalem, we abstained. Protests are necessary, but they can seem a weak gesture in the face of the carnage on the Gaza boundary. Since the first Great Return March a month and a half ago, around ninety people have been killed by IDF snipers. The victims include at least two journalists and five children. As of midnight Sydney time on Monday, no less than 40 protesters had been killed, and over 900 injured in Gaza on that day alone. … Israel’s actions have been documented and denounced by organisations like Medicins Sans Frontiere and Human Rights Watch. Yet, true to form, Western leaders, Australia’s included, have stayed eloquently silent. That silence expresses better than words the moral bankruptcy over Israel that has long been normalised within the Western ruling class. The US lobby group Jewish Voice for Peace recently took out newspaper advertisements noting that as of May 10, only 21 out of 535 members of Congress had spoken out against Israeli brutality during the Great March of Return protests.” (Nick Riemer, “Nakba Day: The Palestinian slaughter goes on but the path to peace is still possible”, New Matilda, 15 May 2018)

Sanders (US).  Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after more than 50 Palestinians were killed and 2,200 wounded by Israeli troops along the border fence with Gaza on Monday, 14 May 2018:

“More than 50 killed in Gaza today and 2,000 wounded, on top of the 41 killed and more than 9,000 wounded over the past weeks. This is a staggering toll. Hamas violence does not justify Israel firing on unarmed protesters. The United States must play an aggressive role in bringing Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and the international community together to address Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and stop this escalating violence. ” (“Sanders statement on Gaza violence”, Bernie Sanders, 14 May 2018)

Save the Children (International NGO). Save the Children (an iconic, international,  child-saving NGO):

“Hundreds of children, some as young as eight years old, have been shot by live ammunition in the Gaza protests, an analysis by Save the Children has shown. Out of more than 500 detailed injuries in children, at least 250 (some 50 percent) were hit with live bullets, according to data collected by the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is also being used by the United Nations in its reporting. The true number could be even higher. The Ministry have reported that so far 689 children have been injured, however the details of these injuries have not yet been revealed. Almost 8,000 people, including almost 700 children, have been injured in protests since 30 March. This includes 4,150 people (52 per cent) who were hospitalized and 2,017 (25 per cent) were shot with live ammunition. There have been no reported injuries on the Israeli side.” (Save the Children, “More than 250-children in Gaza shot with live ammunition as protests escalate” Save the Children, 11 May 2018)

Shakir (US, Human Rights Watch). Omar Shakir (Israel and Palestine Director , Human Rights Watch):

“As hundreds gathered Monday in Jerusalem to celebrate the move of the U.S. Embassy, about 100 kilometers away, Israeli forces fired on Palestinian demonstrators protected by the fence separating Israel from Gaza. They killed 60 people and injured well over 1,000 with live fire, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Israeli forces have shot dead over 100 Palestinians in demonstrations in Gaza since March 30, including 14 children, and injured over 3,500 with live fire. These staggering casualty levels are neither the result of justifiable force nor of isolated abuses; but foreseeable results of senior Israeli officials’ orders on the use of force… Bloodshed on this scale results directly from these open-fire orders that green-light the firing on demonstrators irrespective of the threat they pose, along with Israel’s decades-long failure to hold accountable soldiers who violate their already lax open-fire orders. As criticism of this predictable bloodbath pours in from leaders around the world, the Trump administration is blaming Hamas alone, giving Israel a green light to continue killing and maiming.” ( Omar Shakir, “Israeli open-fire orders predictably result in bloodbath” and “Breaking: @hrw  [Human Rights Watch] reacts to Israel’s gunning down of dozens of Palestinian protestors in Gaza today.” (Human Rights Watch, 15 May 2018; Omar Shakir, Twitter, 15 May 2018.)

Shehada (Palestine).  Muhammad Shehada (Palestinian Gaza writer and activist):

“The point is that people are trying to undertake a mass jailbreak out of what David Cameron, the prime minister of—the former prime minister of Britain, called an “open-air prison,” what a Haaretz editorial calls a “Palestinian ghetto,” and what Israeli distinguished scholar Baruch Kimmerling calls “the largest concentration camp ever to exist. Then you have the call for return, which is the main theme of the protest. And that represents even deeper and deeper desperation amongst the masses. The call for return does not constitute, what Israel claims, an attempt to destroy the state of Israel, but it rather shows that Gazans have given up about the place where they are caged … For the mass protest, the main target or goal is basically finding life. People’s livelihood has been completely destroyed behind the fence. Their future is glittering, literally, after the fence, if they manage to break out of Gaza. Although, virtually, these are waiting, they are no longer prisoners. And that’s exactly what they want. The separation fence is a window for the people of Gaza to always stare at Israelis on the other side leading a normal and organized life. This window does not awaken only jealousy, but also extreme anger and outrage. For how come on Earth that the entire world is watching 2 million people chained to the ground, dying slowly, and doing absolutely nothing?… when Jared was saying that the people in Gaza who are marching and risking their lives and walking towards death bare-chested are part of the problem, not the solution. Then what’s the solution, in his head? Just exterminating the entire population.” (“Gazan writer: protesters are seeking freedom from the world’s  largest concentration camp”, Democracy Now, 15 May 2018)

Shorten (Australia). Bill Shorten (Australian Labor Opposition Leader)  on the latest Gaza Massacres:

“I think it is dreadful what we’ve seen  . In particular when you see the death of children. No good comes of that. No good comes from that at all. That’s a disaster. We are urging restraint from Israel. We also support a 2 state solution and we believe that aggression by any party puts back the cause of peace and doesn’t promote it.” (“Malcolm Turnbull blames Hamas for “tragic” Gaza deaths”, Sky News, 15 May 2018)

Singh (Canada). Jagmeet Singh (Leader of the National Democratic Party, NDP, of Canada):

“Our government has been shamefully silent on recent developments in Gaza, and the prime minister should condemn the violence, call on Israel to cease violations of international law, and support an independent investigation into these deaths… [Canada must] call on the government of Israel to end this occupation. Illegal killings, arbitrary and abusive detention, forced displacement, restrictions on movement, the expansion of illegal settlements, collective punishment and institutionalized discrimination have characterized this occupation that has persisted for over half a century.” (Peter Zimonjic, “Freeland calls on “all parties” involved in Gaza violence to protect civilians””, CBC News, 14 May 2018)

South Africa. South Africa’s Department of International Relations in a statement on the Gaza killings (noting that South Africa withdrew its ambassador to Apartheid Israel) :

“The South African government condemns in the strongest terms possible the latest act of violent aggression carried out by Israeli armed forces along the Gaza border, which has led to the deaths of over 40 civilians. The victims were taking part in a peaceful protest against the provocative inauguration of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. This latest attack has resulted in scores of other Palestinian citizens reported injured, and the wanton destruction of property.” ( “Live blog: massacre in Gaza as US and Israel celebrate embassy move to Jerusalem”, Mondoweiss, 14 May 2018)

Stein (US). Dr Jill Stein (Green Party 2016 candidate for President, anti-racist Jewish American activist, medical doctor, and environmental health advocate.):

“ Israel killing scores of Palestinian protesters in Gaza isn’t a “clash”, it’s a massacre. A US-backed massacre of an occupied people crying out for their human rights. The occupation of Palestine is an atrocity. Stop $10 million/day US support for Israeli military NOW.” (Dr Jill Stein, Twitter, 15 May 2018)

Taylor (UK, EU MEP). Keith Taylor (Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Green party, South East England):

 “In the face of the bloodshed in Gaza, too many in the west have been quick to minimise or even excuse the state-sanctioned murder of unarmed protesters. The White House labelled the innocent lives lost at the hands of Israeli troops as “part of the problem”, as it celebrated its embassy move. The UK government and Labour Friends of Israel blamed the unarmed Palestinian people for daring to protest against their repression and raised the spectre of Hamas. Greens will continue to support the ideals of freedom, equality and respect for international law. And that includes supporting Palestinian people marking the Nakba by protesting against their illegal oppressors. We support a two-state solution but, with Netanyahu being appeased by the west at every turn, this has never seemed so far away.” (Letters, “The Guardian”, 16 May 2018)

Thornberry (UK). Emily Thornberry (UK Labour Opposition  Shadow Foreign Secretary) re Gaza killings:

“[Condemned the Israeli government for] brutal, lethal and entirely unjustified actions on the Gazan border… These actions are made all the worse because they come not as the result of a disproportionate over-reaction to one day’s protests, but as a culmination of six weeks of an apparently systemic and deliberate policy of killing and maiming unarmed protestors and bystanders who pose no threat to the forces at the Gaza border, many of them shot in the back … and many of them children” and “Yesterday’s horrific massacre at the Gaza border left at least 58 dead and almost 3,000 injured. Our first thoughts today are with those Palestinians who are mourning their loved ones or waking up with life-changing injuries. What makes yesterday’s events all the worse is that they came not as the result of some accidental overreaction to one day’s protests but as the culmination of six weeks of an apparently calculated and deliberate policy to kill and maim unarmed protestors who posed ​no threat to the forces on the Gaza border. Many of them were shot in the back, many of them were shot hundreds of metres from the border and many of them were children. If we are in any doubt about the lethal intent of the Israeli snipers working on the border, we need only look at the wounds suffered by their victims. American hunting websites regularly debate the merits of 7.6 mm bullets versus 5.5 mm bullets. The latter, they say, are effective when wanting to wound multiple internal organs, while the former are preferred by some because they are “designed to mushroom and fragment, to do maximum internal damage to the animal.” It is alleged that this was the ammunition used in Gaza yesterday against men, women and children.” (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018 and House of Commons Hansard, Gaza border violence, 15 May 2018)

Trudeau (Canada). Justin Trudeau:

“Canada deplores and is gravely concerned by the violence in the Gaza Strip that has led to a tragic loss of life and injured countless people. We are appalled that Dr. Tarek Loubani, a Canadian citizen, is among the wounded – along with so many unarmed people, including civilians, members of the media, first responders, and children. We are doing everything we can to assist Dr. Loubani and his family, and to determine how a Canadian citizen came to be injured. We are engaging with Israeli officials to get to the bottom of these events… Reported use of excessive force and live ammunition is inexcusable. It is imperative we establish the facts of what is happening in Gaza. Canada calls for an immediate independent investigation.” (John Paul Tasker, “Trudeau calling for independent probe of reported use of “excessive force” in Gaza shootings”, CBC News, 16 May 2018)

Turkey. Turkey withdrew its ambassador to Apartheid Israel.

UN Human Rights Council.   UN Human Rights Council (the UN’s top human rights body)  has voted to send a team of international war crimes investigators to probe the killing and wounding  of Gaza protesters by Israeli forces. UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Gaza Massacres:

“[to] urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry… [It must] investigate all alleged violations and abuses … in the context of the military assaults on large-scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018” (29 members voted Yes, US and Australia voted No, 14 countries Abstained, and 2 countries Did Not Register). The 29 countries voting Yes: Afghanistan, Angola, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela; 2 countries voting No: Australia and the United States of America; 14 countries Abstaining: Croatia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Panama, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Slovakia, Switzerland, Togo, and United Kingdom; and 2 countries which Did Not Register: Mongolia and Ukraine. In addition,  10 of the council’s 15 members wrote to UN secretary-general to express serious  concern that the 2016 UNSC Resolution 2334 demanding an end to Israeli settlement building on occupied land was not being implemented: “The Security Council must stand behind its resolutions and ensure they have meaning; otherwise, we risk undermining the credibility of the international system,” wrote Bolivia, China, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, France, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru and Sweden in a joint letter (“UN votes to send war crimes investigators to Gaza”, Al Jazeera, 19 May 2018)

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Occupied Palestinian Territory:

“Today, as of 20:00, Israeli forces injured 56 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health (MoH), during demonstrations near the perimeter fence as part of the “Great March of Return.” Although 15 May, the 70^th anniversary of what Palestinians refer to as the 1948 “Nakba”, was initially intended to be the culmination of the protests, the demonstrations are now expected to continue at least until 5 June, which commemorates the “Naksa”, when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967… Since the first protest on 30 March, according to the MoH in Gaza, Israeli forces have killed 104 Palestinians, including 14 children, during the course of the “Great March of Return” demonstrations. In addition, 12 Palestinians have been killed during the same period in other circumstances, including five reportedly shot at the fence or after crossing into Israel, whose bodies are reportedly being withheld by the Israeli authorities. The cumulative number of injuries by Israeli forces is approximately 12,600, of whom 55 per cent have been hospitalized. One Israeli soldier has been injured. The violence reached a peak on 14 May, coinciding with the official transfer of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, when Israeli forces killed approximately 60 Palestinians and injured over 2,700 in Gaza, the highest casualty toll in the Gaza Strip in a single day since the 2014 hostilities… In the context of the massive rise in Palestinian casualties since 30 March, the humanitarian response in Gaza has been focusing on providing immediate life-saving healthcare, mental health and psycho-social support for affected people, especially children, and monitoring, verifying and documenting possible protection violations. These new needs occur in the context of a pre-existing humanitarian and human rights crisis caused by nearly 11 years of Israeli blockade, alongside the internal Palestinian political divide and a chronic energy crisis that leaves Gaza’s two million inhabitants with power cuts of up to 22 hours per day, on average, and severely disrupts the provision of essential services.” (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Occupied Palestinian Territory, “50 Palestinians reported injured during demonstrations in Gaza on  first Friday of Ramadan”, 18 May 2018)

UN Security Council members. Draft resolution for the UNSC meeting called for by Kuwait re the Gaza killings:

“The Security Council expresses its outrage and sorrow at the killing of Palestinian civilians exercising their right to peaceful protest. The Security Council calls for an independent and transparent investigation into these actions to ensure accountability…all sides to exercise restraint with a view to averting further escalation and establishing calm…  [actions] which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect” . US opposition effectively vetoed passage of the resolution. (Chris Baynes, “US “blocks UN motion” calling for  investigation into Israeli killing of Gaza protesters”, Independent, 15 May 2018)

Varadkar (Ireland). Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (Ireland’s Taoiseach or Prime Minister, Minister for Defence and Leader of Fine Gael):

“Live ammunition is not a tool to be used for crowd control. The Government will not be expelling the ambassador. In recent decades Ireland has never expelled an ambassador. Any country is entitled to defend its border but the use of force must be proportionate…  Ireland’s embassy will remain in Tel Aviv.” (Fiach Kelly, “Dail divided on response to violence on Israel-Gaza border””, Irish Times, 16 May 2018).

Venezuela. Venezuela Foreign Ministry:

 “[Venezuela’s] ongoing support for the just cause of the Palestinian people and their right to return to the lands that have historically belonged to them… [Venezuela’s] disapproval of the ongoing actions taken by the US government with the Israeli occupying force. These measures are illegal, contrary to international law, and run contrary to all international resolutions regarding this conflict, thus undermining the efforts to find a peaceful and just solution for the return of the heroic Palestinian people to their land.” (Federico Fuentes, “South America: Israel’s massacre in Gaza denounced, support for BDS grows”, Green Left Weekly, 17 May 2018)

Vlazna (Australia). Dr Vacy Vazna (Australian humanitarian activist and writer) :

“All the above criteria for sanctions (and more) apply to the Jewish state’s military occupation and control of Palestinian lives over the past 70 years and apply to its blatant belligerence during the past month against Gaza’s unarmed protestors that has culminated, to date, in 46 martyrs and over 6000 injuries that began with the Good Friday massacre.  The killings and maiming are indisputable evidence of the violation of International Law and International Humanitarian Law ( IHL) which prohibits under Rule 70 ,“The use of means and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering… Article 6 of the ATT [UN Arms Trade Treaty] provides a solid legal structure and obligations for arms embargoes, “Article 6: 3. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”. 94 countries have ratified the ATT. We can demand that our governments honour their obligations and end arms trade with Israel and lobby our governments to support a UN arms embargo. It is the least we can do. ATT  campaigns will erase any sense of bystander helplessness in the face of the Jewish state’s slaughter and maiming of brave young Gazans who are simply demanding their Right of Return under international law.” (Vacy Vlazna, “Calls for arms grade embargo against Jewish State atrocities in Gaza”, Justice for Palestine Matters)

Weiss (US). Philip Weiss (see “Mondoweiss” , an American news website that is co-edited by anti-racist Jewish American journalists Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz and is a part of the Center for Economic Research and Social Change).

Whitson (US, Human Rights Watch). Sarah Leah Whitson (Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa , Human Rights Watch):

“Israel has killed 37 Palestinians in Gaza today, & day’s not even over. This is about individual snipers safely esconced hundreds of feet, even farther, away, targeting individual protestors and executing them one at a time. So inhumane.” (Sarah Leah Whitson, Twitter, 14 May 2018)

Zomlot (Palestine). Hussar Zomlot (Palestinian Ambassador to the US):

 “The US silence is license to kill for Israel, and Israel is taking this license to her and implementing it in full. Failing to speak up is a dent in the moral history of this country” and  re the US Embassy shift to Jerusalem: “Today will go down in history as the day the U.S. encouraged Israel to cross the line towards what numerous U.S. and international leaders have been warning from: A full-fledged apartheid. The reality has evolved into a system of privileging one group and continuing to deny the human and national rights, all granted by international law, of over 12 million Palestinians.” (Caitlin Doherty, “”Israel has right to defend itself” – Donald Trump blames Hamas for Gaza deaths”, Express, 15 May 2018; “Live blog: massacre in Gaza as US and Israel celebrate embassy move to Jerusalem”, Mondoweiss, 14 May 2018)

(B) Bad, offensive or deficient responses to the US Jerusalem move and the latest Gaza Massacres – a  compendium of shameful complicity.

Abbott (Australia).  Tony Abbott (former Prime Minister of Australia betrayed and replaced as PM by Malcolm Turnbull) supporting the US Embassy move:

“The US embassy is now in West Jerusalem, which has been Israel’s capital for nearly 70 years. Australia should consider following Trump’s move” [ noting that Apartheid Israel has war criminally incorporated East Jerusalem and  its Indigenous Palestinian inhabitants into a forcibly and war criminally unified Jerusalem and into Apartheid Israel in gross violation of numerous UN Resolutions, the UN Charter, the UN Genocide Convention and the Geneva Convention; the violently incorporated Indigenous Palestinians cannot vote in Israeli elections ]. (Primrose Riordan , “Turnbull, US blame  Hamas for death of Palestinians in Gaza”, The Australian, 16 May 2018; Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel & Pro-Apartheid US, Australia & Canada face world sanctions over East Jerusalem”, Countercurrents, 20 December 2017)

Ambassadors to Apartheid Israel. Of 83 countries with embassies in Apartheid Israel and invited to the celebrations only 33 attended, namely   Albania, Angola, Austria, Cameroon, Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Kenya, Macedonia, Burma, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Serbia, South Sudan, Thailand, Ukraine, United States, Vietnam, Paraguay, Tanzania and Zambia (Noa Landau, “These are the countries planning to participate in Israel’s celebrations of U.S. Embassy move”, Haaretz, 16 May 2016)

Australia. US lackey Australia and the US voted No to the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Gaza Massacres “[to] urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry… [It must] investigate all alleged violations and abuses … in the context of the military assaults on large-scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018.” ( “UN votes to send war crimes investigators to Gaza”, Al Jazeera, 19 May 2018).

Bishop (Australia). Julie Bishop (Coalition Australian Foreign Minister) released the following detailed statement after the latest series of Israeli Gaza Massacres that was entitled “Palestinian protests in Gaza” (2018):

“The Australian Government expresses its deep regret and sadness over the loss of life and injury during the continuing protests in Gaza. We recognise that Israel has legitimate security concerns and needs to protect its population, and we call on Israel to be proportionate in its response and refrain from excessive use of force. Australia urges Palestinian protesters to refrain from violence and attempting to enter into Israeli territory during the March of Return. The violence underlines the importance of a return to negotiations toward a two-state solution so an enduring peace can be found. The Australian Government is committed to a future where Israel and a Palestinian state exist side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders”,  “Australia voted against the [UN Human Rights Council] resolution because of our principled opposition to resolutions that fail the test of balance and impartiality. The UNHRC resolution prejudged the outcome of an inquiry into violations of international law in the context of large-scale civilian protests in the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. Nor did it refer to the role of Hamas in inciting violent protests” and “Clearly there have been tensions building for some time and Israel believes that Hamas is the instigator behind the protests. The protestors are resorting to violence, they are trying to force entry into the Israeli territories, and we have urged them not to do that. Israel is of course entitled to defend itself, a legitimate right to self-defence, but it must be proportionate and we urge Israel not to use excessive force. The issue of the US Embassy has just escalated the tensions. We are urging all sides to reduce the violence, cut out the violence and return to negotiations. I think the violence underscores the desperate need for both sides to return to peaceful negotiations for a two-state solution” ( Julie Bishop, “Palestinian  protests in Gaza”, Media release, 15 May 2018; “We can hold head high”, Australian Jewish News, 24 May 2018; Julie Bishop, “Interview with Leigh Sales – ABC 7.30”, 15 May 2018)

Block (Australia). Anton Block (Executive Council of Australian Jewry president):

 “The Foreign Minister was correct in rejecting the terms of the resolution which pre-empted the outcome of the inquiry, accusing Israel of ‘impunity’, ‘systematic failures’, and ‘intentionally targeting civilians’. The whole exercise is a polemical stunt to give the appearance of legitimacy and objectivity to blatantly one-sided political attacks on Israel.” (“We can hold head high”, Australian Jewish News, 24 May 2018).

Burt (UK). Alistair Burt (UK Minister for the Middle East):

 “[Palestinian death toll] extremely worrying… [ Israel should] show greater restraint…  [UK would] not waver from our support for Israel’s right to defend its borders” [51]. Alistair Burt issued a statement on Twitter: “Extremely saddened by loss of life in Gaza today. Concerned peaceful protests are being exploited by extremist elements. Urge restraint in use of live fire. Violence is destructive to peace efforts. UK remains committed to a two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital.” (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Collins (Australia). Julie Collins ( Tasmanian Labor MP and Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health):

“Well, I think the whole…the deaths recently was a bit of a tragedy and, you know, I think the arguments that we’re hearing here tonight at the table show how complex an issue this is. I mean, Labor yesterday called for the government to explain its vote in the UN. We were very concerned that we were one of only two countries to actually vote against it. As we’ve heard, some countries did abstain. But the question would be, well, why didn’t Australia abstain? Why didn’t we talk about, perhaps, supporting another investigation with a differently-worded motion? I mean, we’re not in government, we don’t know what the negotiations around that were. But, clearly, I think both sides, if there was an investigation, would welcome it, so that we can actually get to the bottom of what happened. Let’s not forget, 60 people died. I mean, it is heartbreaking that this continues to happen. This conflict has been going on for a long time. A two-state solution is the only solution, and we need to de-escalate things, not keep inflaming them.” (ABC Q&A, “Weddings, Gaza and losing faith”, 21 May 2018)

Conricus (Israel). Lt Col Jonathan Conricus (a spokesperson for the genocidally racist and war criminal IDF):

 “[Since 30 March] only 1 soldier slightly wounded by shrapnel…[no Palestinian incursion] Our troops have not taken any sustained direct fire” [58] (In stark contrast Mohammed Nabieh ( a descendant of refugees from a village near Israeli Ashdod) stated of the protest:  “I’m here because of our land that we want back. We have nothing to lose,” Nobody cares about us. Why should we wait to die slowly?” (Oliver Holmes and Hazem Balousha, “Israel faces outcry over Gaza killings during Jerusalem embassy protests”, The Guardian, 15 May 2018)

Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) (UK). Lord Polak CBE (CFI Honorary President) and James Gurd (CFI Executive Director) said:

“The ongoing events on the Israel-Gaza border are truly heart breaking, and the loss of lives deeply concerning. What makes the matter worse is Hamas’s cynical manipulation of a legitimate protest to further its well-documented violent and genocidal intentions towards Israeli citizens, which is deplorable. In the face of attempts to breach the border and attack civilians, Israel (like any other country) has the right to self-defence. We hope there will be no further casualties and we urge restraint on all sides.” ( Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Danon (Israel). Danny Danon ( permanent representative of Apartheid Israel to the UN)  addressing the UN Security Council:

“Hamas terrorists are hiding behind civilians during the riots.  When it comes to the safety of the Israeli public, too often, the world is silent. The Palestinian leadership is using every ounce of its leadership to attack us and destroy us… [Palestinian authorities] killing their own people [and] playing a public relations game… [Palestinians] always choose violence. ” (Amanda Holpuch  and Matthew Weaver, “Gaza: Nakba Day protests as Palestinians bury those killed in embassy unrest – live updates”, The Guardian,  16 May 2018) [Note that no Palestinians penetrated the Gaza Concentration Camp fence and no Israelis were killed or injured, with 1 Israel soldier being “slightly wounded by shrapnel”].

Dichter (Israel). Avi Dichter ( Likud chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defense committee of the Apartheid Israeli Knesset): “[Security forces] won’t let anyone put soldiers, and certainly not civilians, in danger,” he said.

“The IDF has enough bullets for everyone. I think that ultimately, the means that the IDF prepared, whether non-lethal, or if needed, lethal, in cases where it’s justified by the open-fire regulations — there’s enough ammunition for everyone.”(Avi Dichter quoted in Stuart Winer and Times of Israel  Staff, “Israel “has enough bullets for everyone” senior MK says of deadly Gaza clashes”, The Times of Israel”, 14 May 2018)

Erdan (Israel). Gilad Erdan (Apartheid Israeli minister of Strategic Affairs):

“Israel does not wish to escalate and doesn’t want the death of residents of the Gaza Strip. Those who want this are solely the leadership of the Hamas terrorist organization, which uses a cynical and malicious use of bloodshed. The number of killed doesn’t indicate anything – just as the number of Nazis who died in the world war doesn’t make Nazism something you can explain or understand.” (“Live blog: massacre in Gaza as US and Israel celebrate embassy move to Jerusalem”, Mondoweiss, 14 May 2018)

Fleischer (Australia). Dr Tzvi Fleischer (editor of the Australia/Israel Review at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), PhD in International Politics from Monash University):

“The loss of 60 Palestinian lives along the Israel-Gaza border on Monday was indeed tragic and heartbreaking. Yet these deaths were not the result of anything resembling a peaceful protest, despite claims to the contrary; nor were they the result of either the difficult and worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza, or the opening of the new US embassy in Jerusalem. Instead, they were yet another product of the often divided Palestinian leadership, which has cost the Palestinian people so much. Hamas, which has ruled Gaza with an iron fist for 11 years has become increasingly isolated. It has also been locked in a very bitter political struggle with the Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank and has far more international recognition. Furthermore, Hamas’ traditional methods of gaining attention both internationally and on the Palestinian streets – launching suicide bombings and rocket attacks, or creating terror tunnels targeting Israel – have been closed off by Israeli counter-measures.” ( Tzvi Fleischer, “Gaza deaths a win for Hamas, but show Palestinian leadership failures”, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 2018)

Gurd (UK). Lord Polak CBE (CFI Honorary President) and James Gurd (CFI Executive Director) said:

“The ongoing events on the Israel-Gaza border are truly heart breaking, and the loss of lives deeply concerning. What makes the matter worse is Hamas’s cynical manipulation of a legitimate protest to further its well-documented violent and genocidal intentions towards Israeli citizens, which is deplorable. In the face of attempts to breach the border and attack civilians, Israel (like any other country) has the right to self-defence. We hope there will be no further casualties and we urge restraint on all sides.” (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Guterres (Portugal, UN). António Guterres (UN Secretary-General via a Spokesman):

“The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about the clashes at the Gaza fence today between Palestinians participating in the “Great Return March” and Israeli Security Forces, which resulted in at least 15 deaths and a large number of injured.  His thoughts are with the families of the victims. The Secretary-General calls for an independent and transparent investigation into these incidents. He also appeals to those concerned to refrain from any act that could lead to further casualties and in particular any measures that could place civilians in harm’s way. This tragedy underlines the urgency of revitalizing the peace process aiming at creating the conditions for a return to meaningful negotiations for a peaceful solution that will allow Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side peacefully and in security.  The Secretary-General reaffirms the readiness of the United Nations to support these efforts.” (António Guterres (30 March 2018), “Secretary-General deeply concerned about deadly clashes along Israel-Gaza border, calls for independent investigation, restraint to prevent more casualties.” (UN, 30 March 2018)

Hastie (Australia). Andrew Hastie (former Special Forces soldier,  Australian Liberal Party and Coalition Government  backbencher and chairman of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security)  backed the call by former PM Tony Abbott  for the Turnbull Liberal Party-National Party Coalition government to follow the US lead and move its embassy to Jerusalem. (Primrose Riordan , “Turnbull, US blame  Hamas for death of Palestinians in Gaza”, The Australian, 16 May 2018)

Hume (Australia). Jane Hume (Australian Liberal Party Senator from Victoria):

“The reason why Australia voted against this inquiry was because we believed that it was already being prejudged, that the UN Human Rights Council had already prejudged the outcome. And you could tell that from its language. It didn’t include Hamas in any of the terms of reference of that inquiry. It only included Israel. It included not just Gaza, but also Jerusalem and the West Bank, which weren’t necessarily involved in this particular incident.” (ABC Q&A, “Weddings, Gaza and losing faith”, 21 May 2018)

Johnson (UK). Boris Johnson (UK Foreign Secretary): “There has got to be restraint in the use of live rounds.” (Primrose Riordan , “Turnbull, US blame  Hamas for death of Palestinians in Gaza”, The Australian, 16 May 2018)

Kushner (US). Jared Kushner (Trump’s wealthy and fanatically Jewish Zionist son-in-law as husband of Ivanka Trump) (May 2018):

“As we have seen from the protests of the last month and even today those provoking violence are part of the problem and not part of the solution.” (Amanda Holpuch  and Matthew Weaver, “Gaza: Nakba Day protests as Palestinians bury those killed in embassy unrest – live updates”, The Guardian,  16 May 2018)

Israeli Defence Force (IDF) (Israel). Israeli Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson:

“Yesterday we saw 30,000 people; we arrived prepared and with precise reinforcements. Nothing was cZArried out uncontrolled, everything was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed.” (Israeli Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson on Twitter, @IDFSpokesperson, 31 March 2018)

Labour Friends of Israel (UK). The UK  Labour Friends of Israel group said:

“It is clear after yesterday’s terrible death toll that the violence on the Gazan border has to stop. Hamas must end its cynical exploitation of peaceful protests to launch attacks on Israel and we would urge the IDF to ensure they take all measures necessary to minimise civilian casualties and show restraint. ” ( Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Lamm (Australia). Danny Lamm (Zionist Federation of Australia president):

[Thanks the Australian government] for taking a stand and for protecting Israel’s right to defend itself and not being railroaded by an organisation that has a miserable track record on human rights and calling out human rights failures. ” (“We can hold head high”, Australian Jewish News, 24 May 2018).

Leibler (Australia). Mark Leibler (Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council chairman with executive director Colin Rubenstein:

“Australia can hold its head high as the only member state along with the US to oppose this biased and counterproductive [UN Human Rights Council] resolution. The government promised not to support one-sided resolutions when it recently joined the council and we commend the government for keeping its promise.” (“We can hold head high”, Australian Jewish News, 24 May 2018).

Liberman (Israel). Avigdor Liberman (Apartheid Israeli Defense Minister):

“This weekend hundreds of people were killed in Syria, including dozens of women and children, and I haven’t yet heard the UN secretary general, we didn’t see the Security Council or the Arab League convene, so we need to understand in what environment we are living. Dozens, maybe hundreds were also killed in Yemen, that doesn’t interest anyone at all. But when Israel defends itself we immediately see the spree of hypocrisy and the parade of foolishness. It has to be understood that there are no innocent people in Gaza. Everyone is affiliated with Hamas, they are all paid by Hamas, and all the activists trying to challenge us and breach the border are operatives of its military wing.” (Michael Bachner, “Liberman signals Trump didn’t consult with Israel on Syria withdrawal”, The Times of Israel, 8 April 2018)

May (UK). Theresa May (UK Prime Minister) via a spokesperson (May 2018):

“The UK remains firmly committed to a two-state solution with Jerusalem a shared capital. We are concerned by the reports of violence and loss of life in Gaza. We urge calm and restraint to avoid actions destructive to peace efforts.” (Caitlin Doherty, “”Israel has right to defend itself” – Donald Trump blames Hamas for Gaza deaths”, Express, 15 May 2018; Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Merkel (Germany). Angela Merkel (German Chancellor) statement re the Gaza killings to war criminal Netanyahu as reported by a spokesman  “[Expressed her] concerns about the escalation of violence… [understands] the security concerns of Israel… The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly should not be abused to provoke unrest. Violence should not be a means to enforce political goals. ” (Nadine Schmidt, “Merkel expresses concern over Gaza violence in call with Netanyahu”, CNN, 15 May 2018) [Under Merkel,  Germany supplied German submarines to carry Israeli nuclear weapons-tipped missiles].

Netanyahu (Israel). Benjamin Netanyahu (serial war criminal Prime Minister of Apartheid Israel) blaming Hamas for the Gaza killings:

“Every country has an obligation to defend its borders. The Hamas terrorist organisation declares it intends to destroy Israel and sends thousands to breach the border fence in order to achieve this goal. We will continue to act with determination to protect our sovereignty and citizens” and [I salute] the soldiers of the IDF who keep us safe… from those who pretend to speak of human rights, while holding a Nazi flag. Here is the naked truth. They speak of human rights, but they really want to crush the Jewish state. We won’t let them. We’ll stand strong. We’ll keep our country safe.” (“Netanyahu explains Israel actions in Gaza by “obligation to defend its borders””, Sputnik , 14 May 2018; Michael Bachner, “Liberman signals Trump didn’t consult with Israel on Syria withdrawal”, The Times of Israel, 8 April 2018)

Polak (UK). CFI Honorary President Lord Polak CBE and CFI Executive Director James Gurd said:

“The ongoing events on the Israel-Gaza border are truly heart breaking, and the loss of lives deeply concerning.What makes the matter worse is Hamas’s cynical manipulation of a legitimate protest to further its well-documented violent and genocidal intentions towards Israeli citizens, which is deplorable. In the face of attempts to breach the border and attack civilians, Israel (like any other country) has the right to self-defence. We hope there will be no further casualties and we urge restraint on all sides. ” (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Pompeo (US). Mike Pompeo (US Secretary of State) re the Gaza Massacres “[The US] does believe the Israeli’s have the right to defend themselves and we’re fully supportive of that.” (Caitlin Doherty, “”Israel has right to defend itself” – Donald Trump blames Hamas for Gaza deaths”, Express, 15 May 2018)

Regev (Israel). Mark Regev (Australian Israeli and Israeli ambassador to the UK) defending the war criminal IDF response in the Gaza Massacres: “We used live fire in only a very measured way in a very surgical way.” (Lee Harpin, “Deaths in Gaza are an “outrage” says Jeremy Corbyn as he backs review of arms sales to Israel”, The JC, 15 May 2018)

Schechter (Israel). Aviva Raz Shechter (Israeli UN ambassador): “It is deplorable that this [UN Human Rights] council, which pretends to be interested in the truth, turns a blind eye to the reality on the ground, and unjustifiably condemns Israel for protecting its population.” (“We can hold head high”, Australian Jewish News, 24 May 2018).

Shah (US). Raj Shah (White House deputy press secretary) at news conference re Gaza killings (15 May 2018):

 “We believe that Hamas is responsible for these tragic deaths, that their rather cynical exploitation of the situation is what’s leading to these deaths, and we want them to stop… We think that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Hamas is the one that, frankly, bear [sic] responsibility for the dire situation right now in Gaza…We believe Hamas, as an organization, is engaged in cynical action that’s leading to these deaths. This is a gruesome and unfortunate propaganda attempt… [Mike Pompeo agrees that]  Israel has the right to self-defense.”  (Caitlin Doherty, “”Israel has right to defend itself” – Donald Trump blames Hamas for Gaza deaths”, Express, 15 May 2018; Alex Ward, “White House absolves Israel of all responsibility in Gaza deaths”, Vox, 15 May 2018)

Sharma (Australia). Dave Sharma (former Australian ambassador to Israel) has called on the Turnbull government to consider recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel even if it does not move the embassy from Tel Aviv. (Primrose Riordan , “Turnbull, US blame  Hamas for death of Palestinians in Gaza”, The Australian, 16 May 2018)

Sheridan (Australia).  Greg Sheridan (foreign editor of the extreme right-wing Murdoch media newspaper “The Australian”):

 “So, look, this is a very emotional and difficult issue. The death of 60 people is a terrible tragedy. And there’s plenty of moral blame to go around. I’ll make a couple of points to you. The United Nations Human Rights Council… Depends where we want to start in the debate, but the United Nations Human Rights Council has zero credibility. It never investigates its members such as Cuba or China, and it has had more resolutions against Israel than against all other nations on earth put together. Now, even if you are a critic of Israel, you cannot believe that it is responsible for more human rights abuses than all the other nations of the whole earth put together – the North Korean labour camp, gulag, 400,000 dead in Syria and so on. So as an organisation, it has zero credibility. And therefore, I think the Australian government was right to refuse to endorse that investigation. Now, the business of the demonstrations is tremendously contested. We’re not going to have time to go through all the detail. If it is the case that the Israelis used unnecessary force, that should be investigated. And I would have faith in the Israeli legal system to investigate it… Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and said, “Let’s make this work together. If you work together, you can have a very prosperous economic future.” The situation of life in Gaza is terrible, almost entirely because of the actions of Hamas, which murdered…when it took power, murdered hundreds of other Palestinians. Murdered dissidents, threw homosexuals off the rooftop, murdered Fatah and Palestinian Authority people. One of the reasons conditions in Gaza are so bad today is because the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah decided to sanction Hamas in Gaza and stop paying the salaries of Palestinian Authority workers in Gaza.” (ABC Q&A, “Weddings, Gaza and losing faith”, 21 May 2018)

Singer (Australia). Professor Peter Singer  (Jewish Australian philosopher and author of  “Animal Liberation”):

“I think the situation is a tragic one and it has resulted in the tragedy that we’re talking about this time. But clearly there are extremists on both sides. And, you know, there was hope some years ago, when Rabin was prime minister, for example. But, sadly, he was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli and hopes for peace went down. And since then, I think, both sides have gone to extremes. Certainly, the Israeli government has gone to extremes and has not shown signs of really being interested in negotiating peace or stopping settlements. But on the other hand, you have to say, as far as Hamas is concerned particularly…  they are a terrorist organisation, they are firing rockets into Israel, they are openly trying to kill Israelis where they can, and they did reject offers of cooperation back when Israel left Gaza. So that’s a tragedy for the people of Gaza. And it’s very hard to see a way out… I would have liked to see an investigation, both into why Israel used live fire and could not find a less lethal way of preventing people from attacking and cutting through the fence, but also why Hamas was inviting people to go to the fence when Israel had made it clear that it was going to use force to prevent people, that there clearly was a risk of live ammunition, of people being killed. And why people would go there with their children and babies actually, you know, is mind-boggling to me. What kind of a person would you have to be to say, “I’m gonna take my baby to this area where there’s likely to be firing”.”  (ABC Q&A, “Weddings, Gaza and losing faith”, 21 May 2018)

Turnbull (Australia). Malcolm Turnbull (fervent Christian Zionist and Australian Coalition Prime Minister who betrayed and replaced former PM Tony Abbott) disgracefully blaming the victim in his comments on the latest Gaza Massacres (2018):

“This is Hamas pushing people to the border, pushing them with Israel, pushing them to challenge the border, to try to get through the border. It’s it is it’s it is it’s tragic, Any loss of life is like this or any loss of life is tragic in these circumstances, but Hamas’ conduct is confrontational, they are seeking to provoke the Israeli defence forces… We;;, they’re pushing people to the border in an area in, you know, in context in that  conflict zone you’re basically pushing people into circumstances where they are likely to be shot as Israel seeks to defend itself” and We have taken the view — as indeed, most countries have — that it’s more conducive to the peace process to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv. Obviously, the status of Jerusalem and negotiations relating to Jerusalem are a key part of the peace negotiations, which we wish the very best for and which we support.” (“Malcolm Turnbull blames Hamas for “tragic” Gaza deaths”, Sky News, 15 May 2018; Primrose Riordan , “Turnbull, US blame  Hamas for death of Palestinians in Gaza”, The Australian, 16 May 2018)

Trump (US). Racist warmonger US President Donald Trump has moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem thereby endorsing the war criminal Apartheid Israeli incorporation of  East Jerusalem and  its Indigenous Palestinian inhabitants into a forcibly and war criminally unified Jerusalem and into Apartheid Israel in gross violation of numerous UN Resolutions, the UN Charter, the UN Genocide Convention and the Geneva Convention, noting that the violently incorporated Indigenous Palestinians cannot vote in Israeli elections. Through his various spokespeople Trump has blamed the Gaza protestors for getting killed (Caitlin Doherty, “”Israel has right to defend itself” – Donald Trump blames Hamas for Gaza deaths”, Express, 15 May 2018; Alex Ward, “White House absolves Israel of all responsibility in Gaza deaths”, Vox, 15 May 2018; Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel & Pro-Apartheid US, Australia & Canada face world sanctions over East Jerusalem”, Countercurrents, 20 December 2017)

UN Human Rights Council members voting No, abstaining or not registering over proposed investigation of Gaza killings. The UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Gaza Massacres:

“[to] urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry… [It must] investigate all alleged violations and abuses … in the context of the military assaults on large-scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018” ( 29 members voted Yes, but US and Australia voted No, 14 countries Abstained, and 2 countries Did Not Register). The 14 countries Abstaining included Croatia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Panama, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Slovakia, Switzerland, Togo, and the UK), and the 2 countries that Did Not Register were Mongolia and Ukraine. (“UN votes to send war crimes investigators to Gaza”, Al Jazeera, 19 May 2018)

2018. The US and Australia voted No to the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Gaza Massacres “[to] urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry… [It must] investigate all alleged violations and abuses … in the context of the military assaults on large-scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018.” ( “UN votes to send war crimes investigators to Gaza”, Al Jazeera, 19 May 2018).

US senators.  Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and 12 of his Democratic Senate colleagues (Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Thomas Carper (D-Del.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.)) in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo:

“[Pompeo] should do more to alleviate the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip… The territory’s lack of power, clean water, adequate medical care and other necessities not only exacerbates the hardships faced by Gaza’s population, but redounds to the benefit of extremist groups who use this deprivation and despair to incite violence against Israel… The political and security challenges in Gaza are formidable, but support for the basic human rights of its people must not be conditioned on progress on those fronts. For the sake of Israelis and Palestinians alike, the United States must act urgently to help relieve the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. We stand ready to work with you on this important matter”. Sanders added  a statement: “In light of yesterday’s horrific violence in Gaza, in which more than 50 Palestinians were killed and more than 2,000 were wounded by Israeli snipers, it’s important to understand the desperate situation out of which these protests have arisen. That is why I, along with 12 of my Senate colleagues, have sent a letter to the secretary of state making clear that the United States must play a leading role in addressing the situation.” (“Sanders leads call to address humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, Bernie Sanders, 16 May 2018)

Wong (Australia). Penny Wong (Australian Labor Senator and Shadow Foreign Minister):

“We’ve seen a large number of Palestinians killed, a large number of casualties, not just in the last 24 hours but we have seen issues over the last six weeks. We would urge Israel to demonstrate restraint in responding to these protests. We obviously respect Israel’s right to secure its borders but we do believe it is important that they demonstrate restraint in this and we would call on both sides to de-escalate the conflict.”  (Senator Penny Wong, “Transcript. Sky News live now with Ashleigh Gillon”, 15 May 2018)

*

This article was originally published on Countercurrents.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ).

Sources

[1]. “Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel’s Palestinian Genocide & Australia’s Aboriginal  Genocide compared”, Countercurrents, 20 February 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/02/20/apartheid-israels-palestinian-genocide-australias-aboriginal-genocide-compared/  .

[3]. Gideon Polya, “Israeli-Palestinian & Middle East conflict – from oil to climate genocide”, Countercurrents, 21 August 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/08/21/israeli-palestinian-middle-east-conflict-from-oil-to-climate-genocide/ .

[4]. Gideon Polya, “End 50 Years Of Genocidal Occupation & Human Rights Abuse By US-Backed Apartheid Israel”, Countercurrents,  9 June  2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/06/09/end-50-years-of-genocidal-occupation-human-rights-abuse-by-us-backed-apartheid-israel/ .

[5]. Gideon Polya, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights & Palestinians. Apartheid Israel violates ALL Palestinian Human Rights”, Palestine Genocide Essays, 24 January 2009: https://sites.google.com/site/palestinegenocideessays/universal-declaration-of-human-rights-palestinians .

[6]. Gideon Polya, “70th Anniversary Of Apartheid Israel & Commencement Of Large-Scale Palestinian Genocide”, Countercurrents, 11 May 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/11/70th-anniversary-of-apartheid-israel-commencement-of-large-scale-palestinian-genocide/ .

[7]. William A. Cook (editor), “The Plight of the Palestinians: a Long History of Destruction”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

[8].  Gideon Polya, “Review: “The Plight Of The Palestinians. A Long History Of Destruction””,   Countercurrents, 17 June, 2012: https://countercurrents.org/polya170612.htm .

[9]. Francis A. Boyle, “The Palestinian Genocide By Israel”, Countercurrents, 30 August, 2013: https://countercurrents.org/boyle300813.htm .

[10]. Francis A. Boyle, “The genocide of the Palestinian people: an international law and human rights perspective”, Center for Constitutional Rights, 25 August 2016: https://ccrjustice.org/genocide-palestinian-people-international-law-and-human-rights-perspective#_ftn5 .

[11]. Gideon Polya, “Palestinian Genocide-imposing Apartheid Israel complicit in Rohingya Genocide, other genocides & US, UK & Australian state terrorism”, Countercurrents, 30 November 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2017/11/30/palestinian-genocide-imposing-apartheid-israel-complicit-in-rohingya-genocide-other-genocides-us-uk-australian-state-terrorism/ .

[12]. Gideon Polya, “Palestinian Me Too: 140 alphabetically-listed Zionist crimes expose Western complicity & hypocrisy”, Countercurrents, 7 February 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/02/07/palestinian-140-alphabetically-listed-zionist-crimes-expose-appalling-western-complicity-hypocrisy/  .

[13]. Gideon Polya, “Zionist quotes reveal genocidal racism”, MWC News, 18 January 2018: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/69955-zionist-quotes-reveal-genocidal-racism.html .

[14]. Gideon Polya, “Zionist quotes re racism and Palestinian Genocide”, Palestinian Genocide : https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/zionist-quotes .

[15]. Gideon Polya, “Israelis kill ten times more Israelis in Apartheid Israel than do terrorists”, Countercurrents, 1 March 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/03/01/israelis-kill-ten-times-more-israelis-in-apartheid-israel-than-do-terrorists/ .

[16]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes a succinct history  of every country and is now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/  .

[17]. “UN Genocide Convention”:  http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html .

[18]. “Economy of the State of Palestine”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_State_of_Palestine .

[19]. “List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita .

[20]. “Demographics of Israel”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel .

[21]. John Dugard, “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the crime of Apartheid”, Audiovisual Library of International Law: http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html .

[22]. “Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm  .

[23]. “Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child .

[24]. “UN Charter (full text)”, UN: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/ .

[25]. “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People”, UN: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html .

[26]. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, UN: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ .

[27]. “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees”, Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees .

[28]. United Nations, “Israel’s settlements have no legal validity, constitute flagrant violations of international law, Security Council reaffirms.   14 delegations in favour of Resolution 2334 as United States abstains”, 23 December 2016: https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm .

[29]. Gideon Polya, “Is UN Security Council Resolution 2334 the beginning of the end for Apartheid Israel?””, Countercurrents, 28 December 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/12/28/is-un-security-council-resolution-2334-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-apartheid-israel/ .

[30]. Gideon Polya, “Anti-racist Jewish humanitarians oppose Apartheid Israel & support UN Security Council resolution 2334”, Countercurrents, 13 January 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/01/13/anti-racist-jewish-humanitarians-oppose-apartheid-israel-support-un-security-council-resolution-2334/ .

[31]. “Gaza War (2008-2009)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%9309) .

[32]. “Operation Pillar of Defense”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pillar_of_Defense .

[33]. “2014 Israel-Gaza conflict”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict .

[34]. Gideon Polya, “Israelis kill 10 times more Israelis in Apartheid Israel than do terrorists”, Countercurrents, 1 March 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/03/01/israelis-kill-ten-times-more-israelis-in-apartheid-israel-than-do-terrorists/ .

[35]. “Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel .

[36]. “The population of Palestine prior to 1948”, Population of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine: http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

[37]. Justin McCarty, “Palestine population: during the Ottoman and British mandate period”, Palestine Remembered: 8 September  2001: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story559.html .

[38]. “Historic population of  Israel/Palestine”: http://palestineisraelpopulation.blogspot.com.au/ .

[39]. Gideon Polya, “Economist Mahima Khanna,   Cambridge Stevenson Prize And Dire Indian Poverty”,  Countercurrents, 20 November 2011: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya201111.htm .

[40]. UN Population Division, World Population prospects, the 2015 revision: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/ .

[41].  Martin Gilbert, “Atlas of the Holocaust”, Michael Joseph, London, 1982.

[42]. Martin Gilbert, “Jewish History Atlas”, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1969.

[43].  “Backgrounder: China ’s WWII contributions in figures”, New China, 3 September 2015: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-09/03/c_134582291.htm .

[44]. “New figures reveal Chinese casualties”, China Daily, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015victoryanniv/2015-07/15/content_21283653.htm .

[45].  Gideon Polya, “Australia And Britain Killed 6-7 Million Indians In WW2 Bengal Famine”,  Countercurrents, 29 September, 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm .

[46]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 1998, 2008, now available  for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html .

[47]. Gideon Polya (2011), “Australia And Britain Killed 6-7 Million Indians In WW2 Bengal Famine”,  Countercurrents, 29 September, 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm  .

[48]. “Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of Gideon Polya”, Gideon Polya: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .

[49]. Gideon Polya, “Economist Mahima Khanna,   Cambridge Stevenson Prize And Dire Indian Poverty”,  Countercurrents, 20 November, 2011: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya201111.htm .

[50]. Shashi Tharoor, “Inglorious Empire. What the British did to India”, Scribe, 2017.

[51]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “Inglorious Empire. What the British did to India” by Shashi Tharoor”, Countercurrents, 8 September 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/09/08/review-inglorious-empire-what-the-british-did-to-india-by-shashi-tharoor/ .

[52]. Gideon Polya, “Richard Attenborough’s UK “Gandhi” Movie Ignored UK’s WW2 Bengali Holocaust”, Countercurrents, 15 March 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/03/15/richard-attenboroughs-uk-gandhi-movie-ignored-uks-ww2-bengali-holocaust/ .

[53]. Tom Heyden, “The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill’s career”, BBC, 26 January 2015: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 .

[54]. Gideon Polya, “Paris Atrocity Context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable  Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya221115.htm .

[55]. “Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[56]. “Palestinian casualties of war”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war .

[57]. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Palestinian terror and incitement”: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/default.aspx .

[58]. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Victims of Palestinian terrorism and violence since September 2000”: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20and%20Terrorism%20sinc.aspx.

[59]. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Terrorism deaths in Israel – 1920-1999”: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFA-Archive/2000/Pages/Terrorism%20deaths%20in%20Israel%20-%201920-1999.aspx .

[60]. Gideon Polya, “Comparing Nazi SS & US state terrorism civilian/soldier death ratios”, Afghan Genocide Essays, 19 October 2005: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanistangenocideessays/comparing-nazi-ss-us .

[61]. “Sharpeville Massacre”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre .

[62]. Gideon Polya, “Sharpeville Massacre & Gaza Massacres compared – Boycott Apartheid Israel & all its supporters”, Countercurrents, 6 May 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/06/sharpeville-massacre-gaza-massacres-compared-boycott-apartheid-israel-all-its-supporters/ .

Steve Bannon – Der ehemalige Stratege von Donald Trump, Theoretiker des Nationalpopulismus, drückte seine enthusiastische Unterstützung für die Allianz mit der 5-Sterne-Liga-Bewegung für “die Regierung des Wandels” aus. In einem Interview (Sky TG24, 26. Mai) sagte er: “Die grundlegende Frage in Italien im März war die Frage der Souveränität. Das Ergebnis der Wahlen war, diejenigen Italiener ins Amt zu bringen, die Souveränität und Kontrolle über ihr Land wiedererlangen wollen. Zieht einen Schlussstrich unter die Regeln, die aus Brüssel kommen “.

Aber das heißt nicht “Schluss mit den Regeln, die aus Washington kommen”.

Es ist nicht nur die Europäische Union, die Druck auf Italien ausübt, um dessen politische Entscheidungen zu lenken, dominiert von den mächtigen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkeisen, insbesondere Deutschland und Frankreich, die einen Bruch der “Regeln” befürchten, die ihren Interessen dienen.

Starker Druck auf Italien wird, in einer weniger offensichtlichen, aber nicht weniger aufdringlichen Art, durch die Vereinigten Staaten ausgeübt, die einen Bruch der “Regeln” fürchten, die Italien ihren wirtschaftlichen und strategischen Interessen unterordnen.

Dies ist Teil der Politik, die Washington durch verschiedene Verwaltungen und mit unterschiedlichen Methoden gegenüber Europa anwendet und das selbe Ziel verfolgt: Europa unter amerikanischem Einfluss zu halten.

Ein grundlegendes Instrument dieser Strategie ist die NATO. Der Vertrag von Maastricht begründet in Art. 42, dass die EU “die Verpflichtungen einiger Mitgliedstaaten achtet, die ihre gemeinsame Verteidigung durch die North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) realisiert sehen. Und das Protokoll 10 zur Zusammenarbeit stellt fest, dass die NATO “die Grundlage der Verteidigung” der Europäischen Union bleibt.

Heute sind 21 der 27 EU-Länder (nach dem Brexit), mit rund 90% der Bevölkerung der Union, Teil der NATO, deren “Regeln” es den USA erlaubt, seit 1949 die Position des Obersten Alliierten Befehlshabers in Europa inne zu halten sowie alle anderen Hauptbefehligungen; sie erlauben den Vereinigten Staaten, die politischen und strategischen Entscheidungen des Bündnisses zu bestimmen, indem Sie unter dem Tisch Vereinbahrungen treffen, insbesondere mit Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien, und Sie dann vom Nordatlantikrat billigen lassen, in dem es nach den «Regeln» der NATO keine Abstimmung oder Mehrheitsentscheidung gibt, sondern in dem Entscheidungen immer einstimmig getroffen werden.

Der Beitritt der osteuropäischen Länder in die NATO – ehemals Mitglieder des Warschauer Pakts, der Jugoslawischen Föderation und auch der UdSSR – hat es den Vereinigten Staaten ermöglicht, diese Länder, denen die Ukraine und Georgien hinzugefügt werden und die faktisch bereits in der NATO sind, mehr an Washington als an Brüssel zu binden.

Washington war somit in der Lage, Europa in einen neuen Kalten Krieg zu drängen und es zur Frontlinie einer zunehmend gefährlichen Konfrontation mit Russland zu machen, die für die politischen, wirtschaftlichen und strategischen Interessen der Vereinigten Staaten von Nutzen ist.

Sinnbildlich ist die Tatsache, dass in der Woche, in der Europa bitter um die “italienische Frage” kämpfte, die erste Panzerbrigade der 1. US-Kavallerie-Division aus Fort Hood in Texas in Anvers (Belgien) gelandet ist, ohne irgend eine nennenswerte Reaktion hervorzurufen. 3.000 Soldaten sind gelandet mit 87 Abrams M-1 Panzern, 125 Bradley Kampffahrzeugen, 18 Paladin Selbstfahrlafetten, 976 Militärfahrzeugen und weiterer Ausrüstung, die in fünf Stützpunkten in Polen stationiert und von hier aus in die Nähe des russischen Territoriums geschickt werden.

Dies “verbessert weiterhin die Bereitschaft und Letalität der US-Streitkräfte in Europa” die ab 2015 16,5 Milliarden Dollar bereitstellen.

Gerade als die aus Washington gesandten Panzer in Europa landeten, drängte Steve Bannon die Italiener und Europäer, “ihre Souveränität » von Brüssel wiederzuerlangen.

Dieser Artikel erschien zuerst am 29.

Mai 2018 in il manifesto

Übersetzung: K.R.

Video — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L9qQvg3bYM

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will hold its 18th annual summit meeting in Qingdao, Shandong Province on June 9-10, barely a few days before the (scheduled) Kim-Trump Summit in Singapore on June 12-14. The SCO meetings will be chaired by China’s President Xi-Jingping.  

There are unconfirmed reports that Kim Jong-un will be invited and that a “secret meeting” between Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin, is scheduled to take place in Qingdao on June 9, “on the margin”of the official SCO meeting. At the time of writing the holding of the Singapore Summit is still unconfirmed and could be cancelled by either side.

In all likelihood, the Korean crisis will be on the agenda of the SCO meeting which regroups representatives from SCO member states including China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, India and Pakistan as well as observers from Iran, Afghanistan, Belarus and Mongolia.

Were Kim to attend the SCO venue, this would be his third meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping in 2018.

It should be mentioned that China was a signatory of the 1953 armistice agreement (U.S., DPRK, China’s Volunteer Army). Legally this 1953 agreement cannot be rescinded without China’s participation in the Korea-US peace process.

An unconfirmed report suggests that Kim Jong-un may also “make a guest appearance” at the SCO meetings:

The China Times reports that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a statement about the upcoming SCO Summit, declaring that a “Declaration of Qingdao” is expected to be signed at the meeting, along with 10 other agreements on cooperation in fields of security, the economy, and culture. See Taiwan Times report,

“The first time it was reported that our friends were being butchered there was a cry of horror. Then a hundred were butchered. But when a thousand were butchered and there was no end to the butchery, a blanket of silence spread. When evil-doing comes like falling rain, nobody calls out ‘stop!’ When crimes begin to pile up they become invisible. When sufferings become unendurable the cries are no longer heard. The cries, too, fall like rain in summer.” ― Bertolt Brecht, Selected Poems

There are days I wake up, and I’m not sure what country I live in anymore.

There are days I wake up and want to go right back to sleep in the hopes that this surreal landscape of government-sanctioned injustice, corruption and brutality is just a really bad dream.

There are days I am so battered by the never-ending wave of bad news that I have little outrage left in me: I am numb.

And then I get hold of myself, shake myself out of the doldrums, and remind myself that it’s not yet time to give up: America needs our outrage and our alertness and our tenacity and our fierce determination to remain a free people in a land where justice matters.

This is still our country.

Don’t just sit there.

Do something.

When you hear that the U.S. government “lost” 1,475 migrant children within its care over a three-month period, in some cases handing them off to human traffickers, don’t just chalk it up to incompetent bureaucrats.

The Trump Administration’s plan to separate immigrant children from their parents at the border should outrage anyone with a moral conscience, especially in light of the government’s latest revelation that it is unable to account for the whereabouts of 1500 of those children.

Mind you, this is not just a Trump problem. A recent report indicates that under President Obama’s watch, migrant children were allegedly beaten, threatened with sexual violence and repeatedly assaulted while under the care of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials. According to Newsweek,

“Border authorities were accused of kicking a child in the ribs and forcing a 16-year-old girl to ‘spread her legs’ for an aggressive body search. Other children accused officers of punching a child in the head three times, running over a 17-year-old boy and denying medical care to a pregnant teen, who later had a stillbirth.”

ACT. It doesn’t matter what your politics are or where you stand on immigration issues. There are some lines that should never be crossed—some government actions that should never be tolerated or justified—no matter what the end goal might be, and this is one of them. Demand that Congress stop playing politics and endangering children’s lives.

When you read that Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants police to use stop and frisk tactics randomly against Americans without even the need for reasonable suspicion, don’t just shake your head disapprovingly.

ACT: Call the Justice Department (202-353-1555) and read them the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

After you watch the video of how the Transportation Security Administration, unfailingly tone deaf to the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, subjected a 96-year-old World War II veteran in a wheelchair to a patdown that left no part of her body untouched, don’t just seethe in silence.

ACT: Contact your representative in Congress and file a complaint on the TSA’s egregious practices. When old women and little children are being groped by government agents, things have gone too far. In light of revelations that the TSA “has created a new secret watch list to monitor people who may be targeted as potential threats at airport checkpoints simply because they have swatted away security screeners’ hands or otherwise appeared unruly,” you can expect even more headache-inducing behavior in the near future.

When you find out that Amazon is selling police real time facial recognition software that can scan hundreds of thousands of faces, identify them, track them, and then report them to police, don’t just shrug helplessly.

ACT: Harness the power of your wallet to urge Amazon to favor freedom principles over profit motives. It’s only a matter of time before these programs are used widely here in the U.S. They are already being used and abused abroad.

For instance, Amazon’s Rekognition software was used by broadcasters to identify attendees at the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Chinese police have used similar facial recognition tools to scan crowds at rock concerts, malls and gas stations in order to catch alleged lawbreakers. Just recently, Chinese police used the technology to capture a suspect who had been living under a pseudonym after he failed to pay for $17,000 worth of potatoes. Chinese schools are even employing the facial recognition cameras in classrooms to alert teachers to students who aren’t paying attention.

When you hear Sessions bragging about how much he loves civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize Americans’ personal property—money, cars, homes and other valuables—without having to first prove that any criminal conduct has taken place, don’t just take his word for it.

ACT: Do your own research. You’ll soon discover that because of the corruption that surrounds this abusive program, countless innocent Americans have been robbed blind by government agents out to get rich at their expense. Billions of dollars have been taken without probable cause. Anthonia Nwaorie, a Texas nurse who had saved up $41,377 to start a medical clinic for women and children in Nigeria, had her life savings seized by Customs Agents who refused to return the money unless she agreed to pay their “expenses.” Six months later, even though Nwaorie was never charged with a crime, she’s still waiting to get her money back.

When you hear about armed Denver police pulling a gun on a school official and conducting a classroom-to-classroom search for a missing student at an area high school, don’t just thank your lucky stars your childhood was more idyllic. Likewise, when you hear that the lieutenant governor of Texas thinks the solution to school shootings is fewer school doors (entrances and exits), don’t just marvel at the short-sightedness of government officials.

ACT: Say “enough is enough” to government-sponsored violence. The systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government has done more collective harm to the American people and our liberties than any single act of terror or mass shooting. Violence has become the government’s calling card, starting at the top and trickling down, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the surveillance drones that are already crisscrossing American skies.

When you read about how 28-year-old Andrew Finch of Kansas answered a 5 pm knock on his front door only to be shot in the head and killed ten seconds later by a police sniper because a SWAT team responded to a prank “swatting” phone call with full force, don’t just tsk-tsk over the senseless tragedies arising from militarized and police and overzealous SWAT teams. Not only did police refuse to identify the officer who pulled the trigger, but he was also never charged with Andrew’s death.

ACT: Demand accountability. If any hope for police reform is to be realized, especially as it relates to how SWAT teams are deployed locally and holding police accountable for their actions, it must begin at the community level, with local police departments and governing bodies, where citizens can still, with sufficient reinforcements, make their voices heard.

The rise of SWAT teams and militarization of American police—blowback effects of the military empire—have unfortunately become entrenched parts of American life. SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations. As the role of paramilitary forces has expanded, however, to include involvement in nondescript police work targeting nonviolent suspects, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling. In some instances, SWAT teams are even employed, in full armament, to perform routine patrols. All too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one tragedy after another for American citizens with little consequences for law enforcement.

When you find out that police and other law enforcement agencies are accessing the DNA shared with genealogical websites and using it to identify possible suspects, don’t offer up your DNA without some assurance of privacy protections.

ACT: Protect your privacy. It’s not just yourself you have to worry about, either. It’s also anyone related to you who can be connected by DNA. These genetic fingerprints, as they’re called, do more than just single out a person. They also show who you’re related to and how. As the Associated Press reports,

“DNA samples that can help solve robberies and murders could also, in theory, be used to track down our relatives, scan us for susceptibility to disease, or monitor our movements.”

By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. Capitalizing on this, police in California, Colorado, Virginia and Texas use DNA found at crime scenes to identify and target family members for possible clues to a suspect’s whereabouts. Who will protect your family from being singled out for “special treatment” simply because they’re related to you? As biomedical researcher Yaniv Erlichwarns, “If it’s not regulated and the police can do whatever they want … they can use your DNA to infer things about your health, your ancestry, whether your kids are your kids.”

In the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals, we are no longer “innocent until proven guilty.”

Finally, when you hear someone talking about how two American citizens in Montana were detained by a Border Patrol agent because he overheard them speaking Spanish at a gas station, don’t just shake your head in disgust.

Screenshot from The Washington Post

ACT: Remind yourself (and those around you) that despite the polarizing, racially-charged rhetoric being tossed about by President Trump, this is still a nation whose strength derives from the diversity of its people and from the immigrants who have been seeking shelter on our shores since the earliest days of our Republic. As President Ronald Reagan recognized in one of his last speeches before leaving office:

“We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation… Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost… Those who become American citizens love this country even more. And that’s why the Statue of Liberty lifts her lamp to welcome them to the golden door. It is bold men and women, yearning for freedom and opportunity, who leave their homelands and come to a new country to start their lives over. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others. They give more than they receive. They labor and succeed. And often they are entrepreneurs. But their greatest contribution is more than economic, because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American. They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America, the greatest, freest nation in the world—the last, best hope of man on Earth.”

As I  make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are to mean anything anymore—if they are to stand for anything ever again—then “we the people” have to stand up for them.

We cannot allow ourselves to be divided and distracted and turned into warring factions.

We cannot sell out our birthright for empty promises of false security.

We cannot remain silent in the face of ugliness, pettiness, meanness, brutality, corruption and injustice.

We cannot allow politicians, corporations, profiteers and war hawks to whittle our freedoms away until they are little more than empty campaign slogans.

We must stand strong for freedom.

We must give voice to moral outrage.

We must do something—anything—everything in our power to make America free again.

As Reagan recognized,

“If we lose this way of freedom, history will record with the great astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

President Putin’s surprise announcement that Russia is ready to maintain gas transit through Ukraine has left people wondering whether both sides’ pipeline jostling over the past couple of years was ultimately all for naught if the pre-Maidan status quo ultimately returns.

President Putin took the world off guard by announcing that Russia is “ready to preserve the Ukrainian transit” of gas, instantly provoking a wave of speculation over why both his country and Ukraine would even be interested in this after making many moves over the past couple of years to strategically disengage from one another. The 2014 success of the US-backed urban terrorist movement commonly known as “EuroMaidan” led to a serious security dilemma between Russia and its “revolutionary” neighbor after which both parties simultaneously came to the conclusion that they can’t depend on one another from that point onwards.

Ukraine started exploring “reverse gas flows” through its preexisting pipelines in order to receive supplies from its western neighbors, which then set into motion Poland’s moves to build an expensive LNG terminal along its Baltic coast. The US saw – and some would say, engineered – a perfect opportunity to sell its costly LNG to the EU by hyping up the threat of Russia’s possible “weaponization” of energy supplies, relying on the mid-2000s stereotype that itself was just a media-driven manipulation stemming from Kiev’s own weaponization of its transit state status. Faced with eventually being cut off from its largest customers, Russia endeavored to diversify its export routes and clientele.

The first part of this strategy saw it transforming the stalled South Stream pipeline into Turkish Stream and launching another Nord Stream pipeline, while the second half dealt with Russia’s “Pivot to Asia” and development of LNG exports to faraway markets. Concurrent with this, the US began to court its Croatian ally into footing a large part of the bill for an LNG terminal on Krk island, with the long-term vision being for America to supply the EU with gas through receptacles along the northern and southern Baltic and Adriatic coasts respectively of the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”.

As it stood up until the middle of this week, all relevant players were positioning themselves for what would happen when Russia and Ukraine finally decoupled their energy relations with another, but all of that was suddenly thrown into uncertainty after President Putin’s announcement, which was completely unexpected. Taking a stab at what might be on the Russian leader’s mind and extrapolating on the geostrategic implications of this move if both parties end up agreeing to it, here’s what it might mean now that Russia said that it’s willing to maintain its gas transit through Ukraine:

Deal Or No Deal?

It’s hard to tell whether either side was able to wrestle any type of “concession” from the other prior to this announcement. There’s a chance that the past couple of years were mostly just one big bluff, notwithstanding the tangible progress that Russia and the US have already made regarding their European energy infrastructure, and that neither Russia nor Ukraine ultimately got anything from the other so they therefore decided to return to the pre-Maidan status quo. On the other hand, there’s also a very real possibility that some kind of deal might indeed be reached, whether related to the Donbass conflict or Ukraine’s internal stability.

It’s impossible to know with any degree of certainty what kind of political horse trading might have taken place in East Ukraine, but as regards the country’s domestic affairs, Russia would have self-interested reasons in keeping its neighbor’s economy afloat through gas transit and the attendant fees Kiev would levy in order to delay this failing state’s collapse and stave off another migrant wave towards its borders. There are almost half a million Ukrainian asylum seekers in Russia on top of 2.6 million migrantsalready in the country, so Moscow might have decided that enough is enough and that it doesn’t want to potentially host another 3 million Ukrainians.

Are Nord Stream II And Turkish Stream In Danger?

Another possible reason behind Russia’s volte-face on gas transit through Ukraine could be that US sanctions against Nord Stream II might actually be more of a serious threat than either Moscow or Berlin have let on, and that the strategic uncertainty surrounding these threats and what would happen next might have compelled Russia to go ahead with its Ukrainian “backup plan”. It’s not to say that Nord Stream II will be cancelled or its scheduled opening delayed, but just that guaranteeing energy flows through Ukraine might assuage some of the US and Polish resistance to this project by proving to Moscow’s adversaries that the EU’s Russian-sourced supplies won’t be almost totally dependent on Germany and Turkey in the future.

About the latter, the expansion of Turkish Stream into the EU via its proposed “Bulgarian Stream” branch would have to go through the same Brussels bureaucracy that ultimately led to South Stream’s cancellation, which itself was an entirely political decision that had little to do with Russia’s actual adherence to the EU’s many regulations. Although Hungary and the Balkan countries desperately need reliable energy exports from Russia, the EU might be more than willing to sacrifice its vassals’ living standards for the time being in order to indefinitely delay “Bulgarian Stream” just like it did with South Stream, wagering that the Azerbaijani-sourced TANAP-TAP and forthcoming “Israeli”-sourced East Mediterranean Pipeline could replace it in the future.

Should Russia succeed in keeping the tap open through Ukraine, however, then the EU would have less of a reason to fear any strategic “dependence” on Russia’s German and Turkish Great Power energy partners because the “middle way” through Ukraine would still be available in mitigating any fear mongered “weaponization” of transit routes that some countries such as Poland are afraid that either of those two might one day resort to. Keeping things as they were with Ukraine might end up being a necessary “compromise” from Russia in order to receive the EU’s approval for “Bulgarian Stream” and calm Poland’s American-triggered paranoia over Nord Stream II supposedly being a “new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”.

Same Route, Same Problems?

The obvious question on most observers’ minds is whether there’ll be a “back to the future” moment in the coming years if Ukraine once again weaponizes its transit status to provoke a Russian energy shutoff and therefore hold European countries hostage at the US’ implicit behest. That’s always a possibility but it appears less likely to happen anytime in the future than in the past. Post-Maidan Ukraine is much weaker than it’s ever been and the economy is literally on the verge of collapse. The country cannot weather any short-term disruption of energy supplies during the winter months in order to please its American patron because this could catalyze uncontrollably chaotic forces that might eventually undermine everything that the US and its on-the-ground allies worked so hard to “achieve” over the past 4 years.

Even in the off-chance that Kiev is compelled to deliver this risky self-inflicted hit to its own very tentative stability, Russia might have already succeeded in diversifying its pipeline routes through Nord Stream II and Turkish/Bulgarian/Balkan Stream by that time, thus mitigating the possible impact of this asymmetrical attack and making it much less dramatic than what happened in 2005-2006. Of course, it can’t be assured that this “back to the future” scenario won’t unfold next winter before either of these two are online, which would in that case make it a deliberate provocation in order to increase the appeal of the US’ LNG and decrease European confidence in these two Russian pipelines, though there are slim odds that this will happen anytime soon just because it might lead to Ukraine’s all-out collapse and remove the present oligarchy from power.

Reflecting on the aforementioned reasons for possibly keeping Ukraine’s pipelines open, Russia might have concluded that this is a necessary and pragmatic “compromise” in order to ensure that the construction of its Nord Stream II and Turkish/Bulgarian Stream pipelines to the EU isn’t disrupted by Brussels’ politicized bureaucracy, wagering that it’s also in Kiev’s self-interest to not interfere with these energy supplies no matter how much Washington might want it to in the future.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from Eurasia Future.

Wednesday, May 30^th, was Memorial Day in the United States. The commemoration began in 1868 shortly after the American Civil War, when townsmen in several communities came together to decorate the graves of the fallen on the last Monday in May. The practice began in the northern states but soon spread to the south and the annual remembrance ceremony soon took on the name Decoration Day. As wars proliferated in the twentieth century the commemoration eventually lost its association with the Civil War and was increasingly referred to nationally as Memorial Day, eventually becoming a federal holiday.

The American Civil war killed 655,000 soldiers, more than all other U.S. wars before or since combined. It was the first modern war in that it relied on railroads and steamships. The North also destroyed the livelihoods of and deliberately starved civilian populations to reduce the South’s will to resist. It was a war fought on U.S. soil and experienced first hand by the American people.

Today Memorial Day has largely lost its connection with dead soldiers and is instead best noted for being regarded as the first day of summer for recreational purposes. Beaches open up, the lifeguards come out and the smell of barbecued meat fills the air. The declining number of veterans of World War 2, Korea and Vietnam work hard to remember the dead but there is little interest from a public that has become increasingly detached from its non-conscripted professional army.

There is a certain irony in how a holiday commemorating a war fought 150 years ago that had devastating impact, a memento mori to honor the dead and warn the living about the reality of war, is now little more than a bump in the road on the way to the beach as the United States government is openly contemplating new military initiatives in Asia and possibly even in Europe.

The truth is that Americans have forgotten about the War Between the States and, protected by two broad oceans, have no idea whatsoever about the horrible reality that war represents. They have become addicted to war pari passu without any perception of what that might mean if an adversary were to develop the capability to strike the homeland. For most Americans war is little more than a video game, seen in snippets on the nightly news. It is a peculiar form of cultural blindness, an exercise that involves foreign people in faraway places and is not to be taken seriously. The rest of the world, which has experienced far too much of war’s devastation first hand has quite a different viewpoint, however.

For the past three weeks I have been traveling in Asia and Europe, to include stops in America’s two enemies du jour Iran and Russia. World War 2, ended 73 years ago, is still clearly visible in the ruins and shattered lives. St Petersburg in Russia is still restoring palaces vandalized and burnt by the Germans. In Germany, the historic Medieval Hanseatic port of Rostock was 80% reduced to rubble by U.S. and British bombers. It was a war in which cities burned and 80 million soldiers and civilians died, only one half of one per cent of which were Americans. Russia lost 27 million alone. The continental United States alone among major belligerents was untouched by the fighting.

Iran too bears the scars of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, in which Washington supported Baghdad. Half a million Iranians and Iraqis died. In the deliberately never-ending War on Terror 8,000 Americans have lost their lives in places few would be able to find on a map but, by some estimates, so have nearly 4 million Muslims directly and as collateral damage. Three foreign governments have been overthrown and Washington is seeking to add Damascus to that toll, with suggestions that even Moscow is being targeted for change.

All of which led on my recent travels to discussions in which many non-Americans wondered openly “What has happened to the United States?” Most went so far as to opine that Washington is the world’s greatest threat to peace, not China, Russia or Iran. Sadly, I had to agree.

So it behooves all Americans if good will to band together to end the madness. When Memorial Day comes around next year let it again be a commemoration of the horror of war, the death and destruction. With that in mind, all thoughts of confrontation should vanish to be replaced by demands for negotiation and accommodation. And as for the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, give them a Memorial Day gift and bring them home. Every one of them.

*

Philip Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF.

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. We are facing a mounting monthly budget deficit. We thank the readers who have donated to Global Research. 

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

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.

*     *     *

How Do You Get Off the US “Kill List”?

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, May 31, 2018

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration created a secret “kill list” to step up the targeting of alleged terrorists for assassination. The criteria for inclusion on the list have apparently morphed over three presidential administrations, yet they remain elusive.

America’s Big-Brother ‘News’ Media

By Eric Zuesse, May 31, 2018

The way it works was well displayed, May 25^th, on the opinion page of America’s largest-circulation newspaper, USA Today. Each of the three articles there presumed that the US Government is fighting for the public’s interests, and that the countries it invades or threatens to invade are evil. It is all, and always, propaganda for the US military, which is the reason why the US military is the most-respected institution in the United States, despite being the most wasteful and the most corrupt of all federal Departments.

Denialism: The Historical Denialism of Japan’s Crimes against Humanity

By George Burchett, May 31, 2018

Mass-circulation mainstream newspapers have sections dedicated to denying Japan’s crimes during World War Two and its pre-war colonial occupation of Asian nations, notably Korea and China.

“I Have a Nuclear Button, … And My Button Works” Trump Is Far More Dangerous than Hitler?

By Shane Quinn, May 31, 2018

The decision by America to relentlessly pursue, and use, nuclear weapons started an inevitable proliferation domino effect – of no great concern to Western leaders – with nine countries now possessing nuclear arsenals. This includes nations hostile to each other such as the United States and Russia, while on the other side of the world, old enemies India and Pakistan have nuclear stockpiles, not to mention Israel.

The US Trade War with China. Trump wants to Block Countries from using the Yuan as a Reserve Currency

By Peter Koenig and Press TV, May 31, 2018

As you know, the Yuan has become an official IMF reserve currency about a year ago. That established worldwide trust in the Chinese currency, especially since the Yuan is backed by the Chinese economy plus by gold. Whereas the US dollar has no backing whatsoever; its pure and simple FIAT money. 

RFK’s Son Robert Francis Kennedy Jr: I Don’t Believe Sirhan Did It

By Michael Carmichael, May 31, 2018

The media-driven mantra of ‘conspiracy theory’ has collapsed while the lone gunman theories of these three iconic political assassinations have disappeared under the stark gaze of scientific analysis and the testimony of credible eyewitnesses including Paul Schrade, a genuine American hero who survived a bullet wound to his head at the side of RFK on that fateful evening in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel half a century ago.