Global Research

The Prevent strategy originally set up in 2006 by Tony Blair’s government was reviewed by the 2011 coalition government and then fully updated in a 116 page document that describes the potential threat of terrorism in Britain:

“Intelligence indicates that a terrorist attack in our country is ‘highly likely’. Experience tells us that the threat comes not just from foreign nationals but also from terrorists born and bred in Britain. It is therefore vital that our counter-terrorism strategy contains a plan to prevent radicalisation and stop would-be terrorists from committing mass murder. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but the threat from Al Qa’ida inspired terrorism is not. The Prevent programme we inherited from the last Government was flawed. It confused the delivery of Government policy to promote integration with Government policy to prevent terrorism. It failed to confront the extremist ideology at the heart of the threat we face; and in trying to reach those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes even reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting.”

The basic strategy was then redefined as:

“First, we will respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threat from those who promote it. Second, we will prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support. Third, we will work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation.”

All seems good and reasonable in a lengthy document, written and signed off by the then Home Secretary Theresa May.

Clearly, the Prevent programme was originally designed to combat terrorism. It’s new rollout included mandatory training for public bodies. By 2015 over half a million public sectors workers had undergone Prevent training, which included schools and the NHS.

Criticisms of the strategy emerged that included the alienation of Muslim communities, that it restricted freedom of expression and impacted on human rights. This has been echoed by a number of NGOs. A UN representative also suggested that the Prevent programme was having the opposite of its intended effect by “dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population”.

The government has said the strategy was working and “had made a significant impact in preventing people being drawn into terrorism”. This was widely reported in the press throughout the last five years.

Less publicly known is that the Prevent strategy is part of “Channel”. This is another strategy where the Police work with public bodies, including local councils, social workers, NHS staff, schools and the justice system to identify those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, assess what the risk might be and then develop tailored support for those referred to them.

At this point, with criticism or not, most of what is laid out seems on the face of it to be reasonable given the difficulty in approaching problems such as being radicalised, not forgetting that radicalisation is an ideology and nothing else.

The Canary news outlet has published documentation acquired by ‘Cage’ that proves the Prevent strategy, a strategy designed purely for prevention of terrorism has defined the Occupy movement, anti-fracking environmentalists, the Green Party, and individuals in anti-war and anti-austerity protests – as extremists worthy of being in the collective group of ‘terrorist threats.’ One document even highlights individuals who ‘home educate’ their children as a threat to national security.

We always knew a few years ago that organisations like the Occupy movement were under extreme surveillance and infiltration tactics and yet were still defined as ‘domestic extremists’ and placed in the same category of al-Qaida and IRA Terrorism in what emerged as Project Fawn. In that leak even student protests were targeted by police and listed as threats to society alongside David Copeland, a neo-Nazi who carried out a nail-bombing campaign in 1999. It looks like the Prevent strategy is going the same way as recent terror related legislation over the last few years that was either broadened or abused.

The Guardian reported back in 2015 that

“A coalition of police monitoring groups, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), accused the City of London police of conflating protest with terrorism and violence. Kevin Blowe, a co-ordinator of Netpol, said this was repeated around the country and was the “result of including ill-defined labels, like ‘domestic extremism’, within the language and strategies of counter-terrorism”.

Another document released by Cage states that 87 percent of those being monitored are individuals, 11 percent are institutions, but that only 2 percent are ideologies. Emerging threats were referrals coming from Syria – hardly a big surprise given Britain’s role in destroying yet another sovereign nation without good reason.

Netpol went on to say at the time that:

“Programmes like the government’s Prevent strategy overwhelmingly target and stigmatise Muslim communities, but as Project Fawn shows, they also provide plenty of scope to include almost any group of political activists that the police dislike or consider an inconvenience. There a real disdain for legitimate rights to exercise freedoms of expression and assembly in a free society, which leads to individuals having their lawful activities recorded and retained on secret police intelligence databases.”

Since then the government have gone on to create more anti-radicalisation programmes, in addition to Prevent.

• Pursue—its main aim is “to stop terrorist attacks”.
• Protect—“to strengthen our protection against terrorism attack”.
• Prepare—“where an attack cannot be stopped, to mitigate its impact”.

Meanwhile, Britain’s freedoms continue to be massively eroded by a government hell bent on ensuring our endemic surveillance state is supported through legislation such the Investigatory Powers Act that effectively legalises a range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services over the wider general public. Whistleblower Edward Snowden stated that –

“The UK has legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes further than many autocracies.”

Snowden has not been proved wrong.

The Guardian reported six months ago that Liberal Democrat peer Lord Strasburger, one of the leading voices against the investigatory powers bill, said:

“We do have to worry about a UK Donald Trump. If we do end up with one, and that is not impossible, we have created the tools for repression. The real Donald Trump has access to all the data that the British spooks are gathering and we should be worried about that.”

Within this Act, journalists are no longer protected – another sure sign of autocratic tendencies.

In the end, even Max Hill QC, the barrister appointed by the government to be the independent reviewer of terrorism laws in the United Kingdom has said enough is enough.

Speaking exclusively to The Independent, a few days ago, Max Hill QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, argued potential jihadis can be stopped with existing “general” laws that are not always being used effectively to take threats off the streets and that the “Government should consider abolishing all anti-terror laws as they are “unnecessary” in the fight against extremists”.

Hill also expressed concern over the threat to civil liberties posed by some proposed anti-terror measures, warning laws aimed at tackling hate preachers could easily veer into the territory of “thought crime”.

David Videcette, a former Scotland Yard counter-terror detective, agreed, arguing that police should be using “disruption” techniques that are frequently applied to organised crime.

“The profile of religious extremists is changing, they are more criminal-based,” he told The Independent. “We need to be better … the counter-terror work needs to be more crime-focused.”

Max Hill and David Videcette’s comments will fall on deaf years though.

Like so many other Acts of parliament, terror laws in their various guises are being used for nefarious reasons. Under the cover of national security, legislation such as the Public Space Protection Orders, the expansion of Privately Owned Public Spaces, The Anti-Terrorism and Security Act, the Terrorism Act and RIPA continue to be used against civil society, civil liberty and human rights.

Considering that the BBC – a publicly funded organisation uses terror laws to hunt down licence fee dodgers, local councils use them for council tax arrears, dog fouling, illegal sun bed use and even feeding pigeons, was it really any big surprise that the Prevent strategy was going to be abused by the authorities in their continued battle against the civil liberties of the general public in yet another threat to the principles of British democracy.

All images in this article are from TruePublica.

Is there anyone in Trump’s government who is not an imbecile?

After years of endless military threats against Russia—remember CIA deputy director Mike Morell saying on TV (Charlie Rose show) that the US should start killing Russians to give them a message, and Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley threatening “We’ll beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before”—now the US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin threatens China. If China doesn’t abide by Washington’s new sanctions on North Korea, Mnuchin said the US “will put additional sanctions on them [China] and prevent them from accessing the US and international dollar system.”

Here is the broke US government $20 trillion in public debt, having to print money with which to buy its own bonds, threatening the second largest economy in the world, an economy on purchasing power parity terms that is larger than the US economy.

Take a moment to think about Mnuchin’s threat to China. How many US firms are located in China? It is not only Apple and Nike. Would sanctions on China mean that the US firms could not sell their Chinese made products in the US or anywhere outside China? Do you think the global US corporations would stand for this?

What if China responded by nationalizing all US factories and all Western owned banks in China and Hong Kong?  

Mnuchin is like the imbecile Nikki Haley. He doesn’t know who he is threatening.  

Consider Mnuchin’s threat to exclude China from the international dollar system. Nothing could do more harm to the US and more good to China.

A huge amount of economic transactions would simply exit the dollar system, reducing its scope and importance.  Most importantly, it would finally dawn on the Chinese and Russian governments that being a part of the dollar system is a massive liability with no benefits. Russia and China should years ago have created their own system.  Being part of Washington’s system simply lets Washington make threats and impose sanctions. 

The reason Russia and China are blind to this is that they foolishly sent students to the US to study economics.  These students returned completely brainwashed with neoliberal economics, “junk economics” in Michael Hudson’s term. This American economics makes Russian and Chinese economists de facto American stooges. They support policies that serve Washington instead of their own countries.

If China and Russia want to be sovereign countries, they must pray that Mnuchin does cut them off from the dollar system that exploits them. Then Russia and China will have to put in place their own system and learn real economics instead of propaganda posing as economics that serves Washington’s interest.

TOKYO/LIMA – Today, 47 civil society organizations delivered an open letter to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Tokyo 2020 Olympic authorities, at the start of the IOC Executive Board Meeting in Lima, Peru. The letter reiterated grave and mounting concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of IOC sustainability commitments and the reputation and credibility of the iconic Olympic games. The letter criticizes the Olympics for knowingly exploiting tropical forests and potentially fueling human rights abuses in the construction and implementation of the games. The groups are calling for full transparency and an end to the use of rainforest wood to construct the Tokyo Olympic facilities, including the new National Olympic Stadium.

The signatory organizations, which include a broad cross section of NGOs with expertise in supply chain risks associated with environmental and human rights, are critical of the continued lack of transparency by Tokyo Olympic authorities.

“The Tokyo Olympic authorities are hiding the fact that they are using massive volumes of tropical wood to construct the new National Olympic Stadium. Without full transparency of the timber supply chain, claims to hosting a sustainable Olympics are completely baseless,” said Hana Heineken with Rainforest Action Network.

NGOs claim that the IOC’s failure to address the obvious risk of unsustainability is a clear breach of its own commitment to “include sustainability in all aspects of the Olympic Games.” In particular, they point to a major loophole in the Tokyo 2020 procurement policy that allows wood used for concrete formwork to be exempted from the policy’s environmental, labor and human rights requirements, despite the majority of this type of wood in Japan coming from the rainforests of Malaysia and Indonesia where problems of illegal logging, rainforest destruction, and land rights violations persist.

On December 6 2016, 44 NGOs sent a letter to the IOC warning them of the high risk that illegal and unsustainable rainforest wood would be used to construct Tokyo’s new Olympic National Stadium and other related facilities. The groups warned that failure to adopt additional safeguards and due diligence measures at the outset of the construction could result in complicity with human rights abuses, illegal logging, and rainforest destruction. The letter offered evidence of high risk timber from Malaysia being used in Tokyo construction projects and argued that the Tokyo 2020 Timber Sourcing Code is ill-equipped to prevent the use of risky timber. Yet, not a single demand put forward in the letter has been met.

Today’s letter states that the new National Olympic Stadium is using significant volumes of rainforest wood as concrete formwork plywood. They point to evidence that tropical plywood supplied by a notorious Malaysian timber company called Shin Yang is being used, despite the company’s history of illegal logging, rainforest destruction, and human rights violations. While Tokyo Olympic authorities have defended their use of Shin Yang wood by claiming it is certified, the letter refutes claims to sustainability with evidence that Shin Yang’s certified wood is linked to human rights violations in Sarawak, Malaysia. The letter also states that the majority of wood being used for the Stadium as concrete formwork is in fact uncertified and very likely to have originated from the rainforests of Malaysia or Indonesia, which supplies most concrete formwork plywood used in Japan.

“Shin Yang’s certification is meaningless in the face of evidence from Indigenous representatives themselves that its logging practices are destroying Indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and livelihoods,” said Peg Putt, CEO of Markets For Change.

Tokyo 2020 authorities are in the midst of developing procurement standards for palm oil and pulp & paper, commodities that are major drivers of tropical deforestation. Given Japan’s significant consumption of rainforest-derived paper and growing consumption of palm oil, NGOs warn Olympic authorities to adopt robust social and environmental safeguards or face further criticism for fueling rainforest destruction, illegal logging and human rights violations.

Featured image is from the author.

Sixteen years after the event, 9/11 stands as striking evidence of an insidious assault on science. Officialdom’s dogged adherence to a discredited account of 9/11 stands as a stark illustration of this phenomenon. The subordination of scientific method to the higher imperatives of imperial war propaganda is epitomized by officialdom’s failure to formulate a credible account of the 9/11 debacle.

Universities have become important sites of this betrayal. The sabotage of society’s primary platforms of scholarly enterprise forms an essential feature of a more pervasive attack from within.  Everywhere, but especially on the Internet, fundamental freedoms are being menaced to investigate, publish, publicize and discuss interpretations that might undermine or inconvenience power.  

As a tenured full professor with 27 years of seniority at my home institution, I am currently facing a sharp attack on the remaining protections for academic freedom. In early October of 2016 the President of the University of Lethbridge, Michael J. Mahon, suspended me without pay. He also prohibited me from stepping foot on the University of Lethbridge campus. In explaining his actions Dr. Mahon’s speculated I might have violated a section of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

The vagueness of this assertion exposes the reality that severe punishment was imposed without any proper investigation. Dr. Mahon’s abrupt deviation from the terms of the collective agreement with my faculty association has established precedents and countervailing responses with broad implications.  Adversarial proceedings on this matter began this August in the Lethbridge Alberta Court House. As evidenced by the intervention of the 68,000 members of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the outcome of this case will in all probability significantly affect the future of university governance in Canada and beyond.

Dr. Mahon’ suspension letter detailed that there was a possibility that I might be guilty because of allegations that

a) “my Facebook page had been used for virulent anti-semitic comments “and

b) “Inferring that Israelis, and hence Jewish individuals, were responsible for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.”

Dr. Michael J. Mahon (Source: uleth.ca)

Before dealing with the manipulation of my Facebook wall in the prelude to my suspension, allow me to linger on questions concerning the academy and 9/11. Along with government, media and law enforcement agencies, universities are deeply implicated in sabotaging the quest for 9/11 truth and many other varieties of inconvenient truth as well. The punitive measures directed at me can be seen as a warning to scare other professors into compliance with all manner of official stories?

As for my own reading of the available evidence, I am far from alone in positing that Israel First partisans, including the American neocons that dominated the Project for the New American Century, are prominent among the many protagonists of the 9/11 crimes. These crimes extend to orchestrating the media spin, rigging investigations, and sustaining the ongoing 9/11 cover-up. In publications and on False Flag Weekly News, Dr. Kevin Barrett and I have joined others in extending this investigative and interpretation trajectory into many cases of possible false flag terrorism particularly after 2001.

I am astonished that the Administration of my University became so aggressive in attempting to outlaw an evidence-based interpretation of the most transformative event of the twenty-first century. New frontiers of subversion are being pioneered in the U of L’s audacious administrative attempt to criminalize independent academic work.

What are the implications of subordinating the scholarly judgments of academic experts on campus to the executive dictates of administrators?  How can the principles of critical thinking be cultivated when adherence to conformity is so aggressively enforced by administrators?

The University Administration extends its claims of academic control several steps further in the complaint it brought forward to the Alberta Human Rights Commission seven months after I was suspended. The complaint begins with six sweeping statements outlining topics that the complainants want removed from the reach of critical academic examination. One of the complainants chief assertions is the Islamophobia-inducing proposition that “acts of terrorism between 2001 to the present… were in fact committed and financed by Islamic terrorists.”

Facebook Machinations

A maliciously-engineered Facebook operation created the original catalyst of the smear and disinformation campaign leading to my suspension. Without the originating momentum set in motion by the Facebook operation the campaign to discredit me could not have unfolded as it did. The most public face of this campaign was presented by the Canadian extension of the Israeli- and US-based Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. According to B’nai Brith Canada, an abhorrent post appeared and then disappeared on my Facebook wall during a short interval on Aug. 26, 2016.  The text of the disgusting digital item proclaimed that the Holocaust didn’t happen and that Jews should be “KILLED, EVERY LAST ONE.”

This heinous assertion goes against everything I have tried to stand for in my life including in my academic work.  As soon as I became aware of this blaspheme embedded in the planted Facebook post I publicly condemned it. By mid-September, however, my persecutors were far advanced in pushing forward the manufactured crisis. By then B’nai Brith Canada was mounting a petition campaign demanding that I be investigated, fired and silenced.

Recently the results of a Freedom of Information inquiry have brought to light documents illuminating the elaborate defamation pointed my way in the hours and days immediately following the August 26 Facebook operation. One document was sent to the Office of the University of Lethbridge President and copied to the Premier of Alberta as well as the Alberta Justice Minister. Citing the B’nai Brith, the document’s author characterized me as an “advocate for the murder of Jews.”

Another letter dated 1 Sept. 2016 was signed by the President of the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association. This signator, who has since passed away, cited the complete text of the offending Facebook post. The letter to Dr. Mahon indicated the reprehensible words actually came “from my lips.”

I cannot understand why Dr. Mahon did not at this juncture properly investigate by consulting me directly and conferring with the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association. Instead the President opted to push ahead with drastic action based on incomplete information combined with the intense pressure brought to bear on him by an extremely influential external political lobby

Hate Speech Deceptions

None of my persecutors has yet identified the true source of the offending Facebook item. My own research into the matter, including my email exchange with cartoonist Ben Garrison, has led me to Joshua Goldberg. American Herald Tribune has published my article on this young man. Goldberg is widely reported to be the creator of many Internet personalities, all of whom generate abundant “hate speech deceptions” from various ethnic and ideological perspectives.

Goldberg’s case exposes much about the wholesale manufacturing and misrepresentation of so-called “hate speech” to justify censorship on the Internet. In my case an atrocious digital item was strategically inserted with the aim of ruining me professionally and personally.

The intervention of Internet leviathans like Google and Facebook is especially aggressive when it comes to disappearing material critical of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. My own experience with the Canadian branch of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith points to the strength of this pattern. Why is it that this same Zionist organization is being tasked with the strategic responsibility of censoring and categorizing You Tube videos?

As illustrated by William Pepper’s development of civil litigation to bring to light the US government’s role in the tragedy suffered by the family of Martin Luther King Jr., we rarely get criminal trials pressed against the world’s most powerful interests and operatives. Instances of possible false flag terrorism, but especially 9/11, have been rendered especially immune to any kind of trial that would put before the public evidence garnered from genuine investigations of facts.

Perhaps the reference to 9/11 in a University Administration’s efforts to condemn me for academic thought crimes and speech crimes will force the forbidden topic into some kind of evidence-based juridical procedure. When it comes to understanding the real dynamics of who did what to whom on 9/11, the truth must prevail.

Dr. Hall is editor in chief of American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

Featured image is from the author.

Last week, Israel began holding its largest military drill in 20 years, and it was specifically designed to simulate a war with Hezbollah.

From the Independent:

“The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has deployed thousands of air, sea and land personnel to the Lebanese border for its biggest military drill in almost two decades, a show of strength designed to [intimidate] Hezbollah and Iran even as their power grows in neighbouring Syria.”

Beginning last Monday, soldiers and reservists alike practiced simulating a 10-day-long war with Hezbollah, an Iranian-sponsored Shi’a militant group located mainly in Lebanon. Israel even prepared two field hospitals, as well as trucks and helicopters for evacuating simulated casualties.

According to the Independent, the drill began with small border skirmishes and escalated into a full-on war with the aim of completely obliterating the Lebanese opponents. Even the soldiers playing the role of Hezbollah were to be dressed in the group’s traditional attire and will don their yellow and green flag.

“The purpose of the drill is to test the fitness of the Northern Command and the relevant battalions during an emergency,” one IDF officer told Haaretz.

In the exercise, Israel was to give the armed forces an order to “vanquish” Hezbollah, “the state in which Hezbollah either has no ability or desire to attack anymore,” the IDF officer explained.

The drill, known as the “Light of the Grain” drill, took 18 months to plan. It utilizes fighter planes, ships, submarines, drones, cyber and canine units, and Israel’s missile defense system.

Speaking of Israel’s missile defense system, Defense News recently reported that Israel is readying its Iron Dome defense system for its first intercept test in the U.S., part and parcel of the U.S. Army’s demonstration aimed at selecting an interim solution for a medium and short-range air defense system.

The Iron Dome has proven very effective, scoring over 1,500 intercepts against Gaza-launched rockets since it was first deployed in 2011. However, it is now being tested to see if it can defend Israel against other potential threats, as its proven capabilities “don’t even come close” to the full extent of the system’s capabilities, according to Ari Sacher, Rafael Ltd.’s Iron Dome Systems Project Manager.

Clearly, Israel is preparing its defense systems for something far greater than the standard home-made rockets found flying out of the Gaza strip. Considering the fact that an Israeli military general is drafting a defense policy document with the specific goal of launching a war with Iran, this might give us some clues about what Israel is preparing for specifically.

Over a decade ago, Israel fought a major short-lived war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has been preparing for its rematch with Hezbollah for some time now, as well as striking Hezbollah targets from within Syria. Hezbollah has been a natural ally of Syria, even dating back to the reign of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad’s father.

Israel also continues to strike Syrian territory to this day in a flagrant disregard for international law, specifically targeting Syrian government facilities with ties to Hezbollah. Syria and Hezbollah have not responded yet, but no one seems to be able to answer the question: what happens if Iran, Syria and/or Hezbollah decide to respond in kind with an equally aggressive act?

A senior Israeli official warned the Russian government that if Iran continues to expand its presence in Syria, Israel plans to respond by bombing the Syrian president’s palaces. This is all while Israel knows full well that it cannot realistically take on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah by itself and without American intervention.

Hezbollah is a quasi-ally of not only Iran, but Russia, too. Russia recently threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolution that describes Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Russia also warned Israel indirectly not to attack Iran in Syria, explaining that parties that violate international law and undermine Syria’s sovereignty will not be tolerated.

Not to mention that in response to Donald Trump’s April strike on the Syrian government, Russia and Iran issued a joint statement with Hezbollah warning that the next time such an attack occurs, they will all respond in kind.

It is also worth noting that Hezbollah has spent six years in the brutal Syrian battle arena, during which time they have attained new recruits, battle-hardened their members, and developed the belief that they can successfully take on a number of military forces in the region. As the Hill explains:

“The new cadre of fighters Hezbollah is bringing in is also professionalizing what was previously an explicitly guerrilla-oriented organization. The fight for Syria against the nominally Sunni ‘Takfiri’ (apostate) ISIS, has been a gift to the Shia Hezbollah, spurring recruitment efforts. Put simply, Hezbollah is not just getting better at fighting, its army is also getting bigger.”

Prior to the 2006 conflict, Hezbollah had approximately 13,000 rockets. It now boasts some 150,000 rockets and missiles, as well as Russian-supplied missiles that “can hit anywhere in Israel,” according to one Lebanese commander.

Unsurprisingly, none of this is headline news. Only those paying attention are aware of these looming developments and the dangers of a direct confrontation involving Israel — a stalwart American ally — approaching the Middle East’s numerous battle theaters. Whether or not the world will sleep-walk into this war remains to be seen; perhaps, and, ideally, Israel’s invasion simulation will act as a deterrent only and ensure that cooler heads will prevail in order to diffuse the situation between these regional adversaries.

Under heavy pressure and threats from Washington, the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Monday evening for harsh new economic sanctions on North Korea following its sixth nuclear test, the largest to date, on September 3. Far from easing tensions in North East Asia, the resolution sets the stage for further US provocations and heightens the danger of military conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

While the US made concessions to China and Russia to obtain their support, the new bans further isolate the North Korean economy and threaten to precipitate an economic and political crisis in Pyongyang. Following on from the Obama administration’s sanctions last year, the Trump administration is not specifically targeting North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, but is seeking to cripple the country economically.

After North Korea’s nuclear test, Washington pressed for a complete oil embargo, a global ban on the use of North Korean workers abroad and a mandate to use military force to inspect ships suspected of carrying goods prohibited under UN resolutions. China and Russia, which fear the US will exploit any crisis in Pyongyang to install a pro-American regime, opposed these sweeping measures.

The compromise UN resolution, however, still imposes severe penalties on North Korea, including:

• An annual cap of 8.5 million barrels on the sale of refined and crude oil to North Korea. The sale of natural gas and condensates is prohibited, to close off possible alternative fuels. A US official told the Washington Post that the figure represents a 30 percent cut.
• UN member states will be required not to renew the contracts of an estimated 93,000 North Korean guest workers, whose wages bring in an estimated $500 million a year to North Korea. The only caveat is for guest workers who are deemed necessary for humanitarian assistance or denuclearisation.
• Countries will also be obliged to inspect ships suspected of carrying North Korean goods that might be banned under UN resolutions. Any ship found to be carrying banned goods will be subject to an asset freeze and may be barred from sailing into ports. The resolution, however, drops the US proposal to allow the use of military force, and the consent of the country in which the ship is registered is required.
• The purchase of all North Korean textiles is banned. Last year, textile exports were $726 million, or more than a quarter of North Korea’s total export income.

This comes on top of UN bans last month on the export of coal, iron, iron ore, lead and seafood estimated to be worth $1 billion, or about one third of export income.

The resolution did not include a travel ban and asset freeze on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as originally proposed by Washington.

While blocking aspects of the draft US resolution, China announced its own unilateral financial sanctions yesterday that could have a far-reaching impact on North Korea.

The country’s top five banks—Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and Bank of Communications—will freeze the opening of new accounts by North Korean individuals or companies. Three of the five banks said they had started “cleaning out” existing accounts by blocking new deposits.

The Financial Times pointed out there were ways to circumvent the new ban, including through the use of Chinese citizens as intermediaries. Two Chinese businessmen who run companies in North Korea, told the newspaper that all their payments to North Korean staff were in Chinese currency, avoiding the use of Chinese or North Korean banks.

Nevertheless, the new Chinese sanctions will make it far harder for major North Korean enterprises to conduct financial transactions in China—their chief connection to the global financial system.

Beijing’s banking ban is a clear sign of rising tensions with the Pyongyang regime, which has publicly criticised China for supporting UN sanctions. Relations between the two countries, which are formally allies, deteriorated markedly after Kim Jong-un ordered the execution in 2013 of his uncle Jang Song-thaek, who was regarded as close to Beijing.

China’s President Xi Jinping is yet to meet Kim Jong-un, and the last high-level visit by a Chinese official to Pyongyang was nearly two years ago. North Korea’s September 3 nuclear test publicly embarrassed Xi, who was hosting a summit of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) leaders at the time.

While not wanting the collapse of the Pyongyang regime, China has opposed North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests because they provide a pretext for the US to maintain and expand its military presence in North East Asia. Beijing also fears that Japan and/or South Korea could exploit the “threat” posed by North Korea to justify building their own nuclear arsenals.

Before the adoption of the latest UN sanctions, North Korea lashed out at the US, warning it would respond in kind if Washington managed to “rig up the illegal and unlawful resolution.” An official statement declared that North Korea would take measures to “cause the US the greatest pain and suffering” it had ever experienced.

Far from defending the North Korean people, this empty nationalist bluster only plays directly into the Trump administration’s hands. The American ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, yesterday suggested the US was not looking for war and North Korea could “reclaim its future” by abandoning its nuclear program. But the Trump administration has repeatedly declared that all options are on the table—including pre-emptive military strikes against North Korea.

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump again threatened to attack North Korea, saying “military action is certainly an option.” While declaring he would “prefer not going the route of the military” and it was not inevitable, Trump bluntly warned:

“If we do use it on North Korea, it will be a very sad day for North Korea.”

Earlier in the week, Trump huddled together with his top military and national security advisers to review all options, which, according to NBC sources, included the possibility of pre-emptive US nuclear strikes on North Korea.

Featured image is from Zobiyen TV.

Featured image: US Air Force (USAF) C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft assigned to Ramstein Air Base (AB), Germany, flies over the Ramstein AB tower, before retiring to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) or “bone yard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The US military has been using its massive air base in western Germany to arm rebel groups in Syria without Berlin’s permission, according to a report from German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitungpublished on Wednesday.

The US military may have violated German law with the alleged weapons transfers as the German government has not approved any weapons transports of this type since the conflict in Syria began in 2011.

The report was published after months of collaborative research among the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).

The data was gathered from internal emails from the US military, interviews with whistleblowers, official reports and databanks from the US as well as the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

Weapons flown from Ramstein to Turkey

According to the Süddeutsche report, private service providers with the US military have been purchasing weapons and ammunition in eastern Europe since 2013.

The Russian-designed weapons, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, were sent from factories in Serbia, Bosnia, Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic and found their way to US command centers in Turkey and Jordan.

Read full article by Deutsche Welle here.

After Yesterday’s unanimous vote on not allowing Kurdistan’s separation by the Iraqi parliament, forces of the so-called Peshmerga militias (armed forces of the Iraqi Kurdistan’s ruling Barazani regime) suddenly started to spread in the areas of of Kirkuk, Daquq and Tuz Khurmatu.

“These forces did not come for the purpose of the referendum, but to suppress the Arabs and Turkmens, as well as to enforce the will of the Barazani regime through arms, tanks and armored vehicles”, said Mohammad Al Bayati, the Turkmen leader of the armed wing of Badr Organization, an Iraqi political party.

Al Bayati called on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its citizens or resign.

It is noteworthy that in late August, the Council of the Iraqi province of Kirkuk, voted in favor of inclusion of its territory in the forthcoming referendum on the independence of the northern Iraqi region of Kurdistan, scheduled to take place on September 25th.

On Tuesday, the Iraqi parliament voted to reject the referendum in the Kurdistan region, with the Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi committing himself to take all necessary measures that would preserve the unity of the country’s territory.

A number of countries, particularly the United States, Turkey and Iran, condemned the decision of the Kurdistan Regional Authorities to hold the referendum, with Ankara even calling on Tehran to do its best to abandon this initiative, as it may lead to an increase of tensions in the already troubled region.

Translated by Samer Hussein

English: Fortruss

Featured image is from Fort Russ.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the National Defense Forces (NDF), and the Qalamoun Shield Forces (QSF) have liberated the villages of Um Rujm, ‘Amudiyah, Rasm Sawwanah, Unq al-Hawa, Khan, Luwaybidah, and Darwishiyah from ISIS in the eastern countryside of Salamiyah north of the Homs-Palmyra highway.

Despite strong ISIS resistance, government troops continue developing momentum in the area. The operation was slowed down in late August because the Syrian military redeployed many units to Deir Ezzor province.  However, according to pro-government sources, the entire pocket will be liberated within a few weeks.

The SAA and the Syrian Republican Guard have seized the important Rouad mountain and developed an advance in the direction of Baghiliyah on the northwestern flank of Deir Ezzor city.  Government troops have also advanced against ISIS in Jafrah and al-Mariiyah.

Government forces are seeking to secure the recent gains and to expand a buffer zone around the city in order to prevent future ISIS counter-attacks in the area.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) further advanced in the northern Deir Ezzor countryside and entered the area of al-Husayniyah within about 3km from Deir Ezzor city.

Meanwhile, in Raqqah, the SDF repelled an ISIS attack in the central part of the city killing some 33 ISIS members.

In summing up the recent events, it becomes clear that both the US-led coalition and the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance are now consolidating their resources in Deir Ezzor province in a race for strategic areas in eastern Syria, including the Baghdad-Damascus highway and the oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Global Research announces the forthcoming release of  the print edition of Mark Taliano’s Book, “Voices from Syria”  which includes two additional chapters. 

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

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

Special Pre-Publication Offer

**Pre-Order Special Offer: Voices from Syria (Ships mid-September)

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 2 new chapters)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Featured image: Multitudinous demonstration for the independence of Catalonia. (Photo credit: @ideiazabaldu)

Two laws have been passed after alterations in the order of the day of the Catalonian Parliament—otherwise, they would have been blocked by the delegitimized Spanish Constitutional Court. After a marathonic session of filibustering by anti-independentists (12 and 14 hours respectively), Catalonia approved two bills that bring the region closer to the dream of independence from Spain: the Law of Self-Determination Referendum was passed on Wednesday night, and the Law of Juridic Transition was passed Thursday night. The former establishes that a binding referendum will be called next October 1, in which citizens will have a say on Catalan independence. The latter will provide a constitutional framework after a declaration of independence if the “yes” vote wins the referendum to be held on October 1.

Just a few hours before the vote on the second bill, the Spanish Constitutional Court had suspended the Catalan independence referendum and its legal framework, following allegations by the Spanish government which claimed the vote is illegal and unconstitutional.

Opposition leader, Inés Arrimadas, referred to the transition law as “something which is not a law, despite being called a law”, and which “will never come into effect” and that she expected an immediate ban of the bill. “It is no surprise that the Constitutional Court has already suspended the referendum law, just like it will probably do with the document that is currently being voted,” she said.

Multitudinous demonstration for the independence of Catalonia. (Photo credit: @ideiazabaldu)

Madrid’s prosecutors are threatening representatives, officials and citizens to try to make them desist of having the referendum. The Spanish capital has also sent civil guard officers to enter the press of a newspaper in the city of Valls, to intimidate them, violating freedom of speech.

The people of Catalonia reacted in a heartbeat. In 48 hours, over 30 thousand citizens took to the streets to confront the threat. This community is organized and doesn’t easily give in to intimidation.

Today, on Monday September 11, 303 years after the fall of Barcelona, over a million Catalans will hold an ever bigger demonstration to prove the world they are united in their will to create a new Republic and a better world.

Multitudinous demonstration for the independence of Catalonia. (Photo credit: @ideiazabaldu)

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday killed an effort by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to sunset the war authorizations that have been used for 16 years to justify ongoing military actions in regions around the globe.

Despite the failure, Win Without War director Stephen Miles argues that the

vote “shows that momentum is building to cancel the president’s blank check for endless war,” adding that “it’s clear that our representatives in Congress are beginning to recognize that after nearly two decades, the conflicts we are currently fighting have a tenuous connection to the laws that are used to authorize them.”

“If Congress can’t even be bothered to vote on whether we should be in war, then we have no business sending young men and women to die fighting in it,” Miles concluded.

In essence, as observers noted, the chamber gave the OK to continuing “endless war”:

US Senate #AUMF vote now being counted. US Senators just voted for endless war. https://t.co/QomVVKilfF pic.twitter.com/ncCsCwE5P1

— Julian Assange ? (@JulianAssange) September 13, 2017

More endless war. https://t.co/jCDA1zQ5EY

— CODEPINK (@codepink) September 13, 2017

Sen. Paul’s attempt was an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have repealed the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force after six months and allow for Congress debate another potential war authorization.

The procedural vote was 61-36, with the “yea” votes in support of tabling (rejecting) the amendment.

Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, Paul said,

“I rise today to oppose unauthorized, undeclared, and unconstitutional war. What we have today is basically unlimited war—war anywhere, anytime, any place on the globe.”

“No one with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes these authorizations allow current wars we fight in seven countries,” he said.

In addition to Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Paul’s effort had the backing of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who tweeted that

“Congress owes our troops and their families a full debate to authorize the sue of military force before we send them into harm’s way.”

Rep. Barbara Lee, (D-Calif.)—the sole member of Congress to vote against the AUMF passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack—saw her similar effort to repeal the 2001 AUMF killed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) earlier this summer, and called the vote a must-follow issue.

“Every member of Congress, regardless of party, has a constitutional obligation to debate and vote on war,” she tweeted.

With the vote to table Paul’s amendment,

“Congress once again chose political convenience over our duty to the American people and service members,” she said in a press statement.

“While this outcome is disappointing,” she added, “we must and will keep fighting to get this blank check for war off the books. The Constitution—and the American people—deserve no less.”

To bring the AUMF to an end, “the public has got to speak out, organize, and mobilize,” Lee told MSNBC Wednesday.

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

Featured image is from Dandelion Salad/flickr/cc.

Former US President Jimmy Carter said the US works more like an “oligarchy than a democracy,” while also lambasting Trump’s “hopeless” approach to solving the Israel-Palestine issue, and the increasing tension with North Korea.

Apparently confirming what President Maduro had warned following the recent US sanctions, The Wall Street Journal reports that Venezuela has officially stopped accepting US Dollars as payment for its crude oil exports.

As we previously noted, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said last Thursday that Venezuela will be looking to “free” itself from the U.S. dollar next week. According to Reuters,

“Venezuela is going to implement a new system of international payments and will create a basket of currencies to free us from the dollar,” Maduro said in a multi-hour address to a new legislative “superbody.” He reportedly did not provide details of this new proposal.

Maduro hinted further that the South American country would look to using the yuan instead, among other currencies.

“If they pursue us with the dollar, we’ll use the Russian ruble, the yuan, yen, the Indian rupee, the euro,” Maduro also said.

*  *  *

And today, as The Wall Street Journal reports, in an effort to circumvent U.S. sanctions, Venezuela is telling oil traders that it will no longer receive or send payments in dollars, people familiar with the new policy said.

Oil traders who export Venezuelan crude or import oil products into the country have begun converting their invoices to euros.

The state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA, known as PdVSA, has told its private joint venture partners to open accounts in euros and to convert existing cash holdings into Europe’s main currency, said one project partner.

The new payment policy hasn’t been publicly announced, but Vice President Tareck El Aissami, who has been blacklisted by the U.S., said Friday, “To fight against the economic blockade there will be a basket of currencies to liberate us from the dollar.“

There is no major market reaction for now – a modest bid to Bitcoin and some weakness in EUR and Gold (seems someone wants this to look like nothing).

Source: The Burning Platform

However, as Nomura debt analyst Siobhan Morden warns:

 “You can say whatever you want for your domestic propaganda and make it look like you’re retaliating against the U.S…. This political posturing will only be to their detriment.”

So what happens if Europe also sanctions Venezuela? Will Rubles or Yuan… or Gold be the only way to buy Venezuela’s oil?

*  *  *

This decision by the nation with the world’s largest proven oil reserves comes just days after China and Russia unveiled the latest Oil/Yuan/Gold triad at the latest BRICS conference.

It’s when President Putin starts talking that the BRICS reveal their true bombshell. Geopolitically and geo-economically, Putin’s emphasis is on a “fair multipolar world”, and “against protectionism and new barriers in global trade.” The message is straight to the point.

“Russia shares the BRICS countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture, which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies. We are ready to work together with our partners to promote international financial regulation reforms and to overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies.”

“To overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies” is the politest way of stating what the BRICS have been discussing for years now; how to bypass the US dollar, as well as the petrodollar.

Beijing is ready to step up the game. Soon China will launch a crude oil futures contract priced in yuan and convertible into gold.

This means that Russia – as well as Iran, the other key node of Eurasia integration – may bypass US sanctions by trading energy in their own currencies, or in yuan.

Inbuilt in the move is a true Chinese win-win; the yuan will be fully convertible into gold on both the Shanghai and Hong Kong exchanges.

The new triad of oil, yuan and gold is actually a win-win-win. No problem at all if energy providers prefer to be paid in physical gold instead of yuan. The key message is the US dollar being bypassed.

RC – via the Russian Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China – have been developing ruble-yuan swaps for quite a while now.

Once that moves beyond the BRICS to aspiring “BRICS Plus” members and then all across the Global South, Washington’s reaction is bound to be nuclear (hopefully, not literally).

Washington’s strategic doctrine rules RC should not be allowed by any means to be preponderant along the Eurasian landmass. Yet what the BRICS have in store geo-economically does not concern only Eurasia – but the whole Global South.

Sections of the War Party in Washington bent on instrumentalizing  India against China – or against RC – may be in for a rude awakening. As much as the BRICS may be currently facing varied waves of economic turmoil, the daring long-term road map, way beyond the Xiamen Declaration, is very much in place.

*  *  *

Having threatened China today with exclusion from SWIFT, we suspect Washington is rapidly running out of any great ally to sustain the petrodollar-driven hegemony (and implicitly its war machine). Cue the calls for a Venezuelan invasion in 3…2..1…!

Featured image is from the author.

Over 20 shopping centers, railway stations and universities had to be evacuated in Moscow, following warnings that they had been rigged with explosives. In total, 190 sites have been evacuated across 17 Russian cities after bomb threats, a security source told RIA news agency.

.

@lifenews_ru эвакуация ТЦ МЕТРОПОЛИС @m24video pic.twitter.com/k9cVmhtki5

— М.М (@me1nikoff_m) September 13, 2017

Очередная эвакуация. БЦ "Город столиц" и ТЦ Афимолл, Москва-Сити. Угроза взрыва, говорят, ждут кинологов. pic.twitter.com/2aE8XmWoCL

— Тихомирова Ольга (@TikhomirovaON) September 13, 2017

“This appears to be a case of telephone terrorism, but we have to check the credibility of these messages,” an emergency service source told Tass news agency, noting that the calls began at the same time, and continued after the evacuations had begun.

Tass reported that over 20,000 people had been affected by the evacuation in Moscow alone.

Эвакуация из за анонимного звонка. Киевская pic.twitter.com/CUkj5Y83CO

— Екатерина Шишкова (@kattyshishkova) September 13, 2017

Emergency services said that police units including explosives specialists and officers with sniffer dogs are examining the buildings. Several later reported that police cordons had been lifted.

Эпидемия анонимных звонков о минировании в России. Эвакуация ТЦ Метрополис в Москве. А здесь о том, что происходит: https://t.co/rpRIh34ksc pic.twitter.com/2ZLUWkzubQ

— Business FM (@Radio_BFM) September 13, 2017

Among the locations affected are three of the capital’s biggest railway stations, more than a dozen shopping centers – including GUM, located next to Red Square – and at least three universities, the leading First Moscow State Medical University, and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations among them.

В Москве эвакуировали три ТЦ и три вокзала #Москва #эвакуацияhttps://t.co/DKH8HUHfsy pic.twitter.com/wUOPuyHfHW

— Спектр (@spektronline) September 13, 2017

Tass reported that the railway timetable remained unaffected by the police operation. Social media accounts show bemused crowds milling passively outside evacuated buildings, and there have been no reports of disturbances of public order.

President Vladimir Putin has been informed of the incidents, but his press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that he would not be commenting “as this is a matter for the security services to address.”

An epidemic of hoax bomb warnings has plagued Russia over the past week. Security services told the RIA news agency that over 45,000 people were evacuated from public places in 22 Russian cities on Tuesday, adding that many of the calls appeared to have come from Ukraine.

Terrorist false alarms are punishable by up to five years in prison under Russian law, and multiple police investigations have been opened. However, the possibility that the hoaxers are using pre-recorded messages – as appears to be the case in earlier, identical messages – automated dialing systems and digital means of concealing their true location present difficulties in identifying the culprits.

Featured image is from RT.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Featured image is from Washington Examiner.

Russia and China are wary of having their multipolar Balkan megaprojects transit through a state which increasingly looks likely to end up internally partitioned or worse, and are instead considering rerouting their planned corridors through Bulgaria instead.

There was once tremendous hope that the landlocked Central Balkan country of the Republic of Macedonia would become “land-linked” in serving as one of the most important transit states in Russia and China’s multipolar Balkan megaprojects of the Balkan Stream gas pipeline and Balkan Silk Road high-speed railway, respectively, but those hopes are seriously threatened by the latest infrastructure news coming out of the region.

In response to Zaev’s shadow implementation of the “Tirana Platform” in disproportionately empowering the Albanian minority and moving towards the de-facto internal partitioning of Macedonia, which itself is being pushed forward under the tacitly blackmailed threat of an Albanian-driven Hybrid War if it doesn’t occur, Russia and China are taking steps to reroute their multipolar Balkan megaprojects through Bulgaria in order to avoid this simmering zone of instability and safeguard the security of their future investments.

Right now nothing is official, but the writing’s on the wall that the two Great Powers are looking to diversify their previously planned strategic dependence on Macedonia as their preferred transit route into the heart of Europe. Take for example what Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in late August about his country’s interest in selling Turkish Stream’s gas to Bulgaria, which could either go through the planned Greece-Bulgaria Gas Interconnector or directly from Turkey to the South Slavic country. For reasons of strategic complementarity with China that will be made clearer in a little bit, it’s likely that Russia would opt for the first variant because it would also allow Moscow to improve the regional position of its Athens ally.

This is ironic in a sense because Russia commissioned Turkish/Balkan Stream in response to Bulgaria’s shelving of its South Stream predecessor, but it just goes to prove that Moscow might rather rely on Sofia than Skopje in light of the dark future that its strategists could be predicting might lie ahead for the Republic of Macedonia. Increasing the prospects that Macedonia will no longer be a direct part of Balkan Stream is the recent trilateral meeting between Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia where all three states agreed to deepen their energy cooperation, which obviously refers to Balkan Stream given the current context.

Oil and gas pipelines in South-East Europe

It’s not just Russia that’s considering moving its Balkan megaproject away from Macedonia, but also China as well, which originally had plans to build a high-speed railroad through the country in connecting the Greek port of Piraeus with Budapest and beyond. Instead, however, China might consider detouring through Bulgaria as opposed to risking the future tumult that might explode in Macedonia. This idea doesn’t come out of nowhere, however, as it’s based on the recent development of Greece and Bulgaria agreeing to build the multi-billion-dollar “Sea2Sea” high-speed railway to run alongside their planned Russian-sourced pipeline. This demonstrates that there might be a deeper level of coordination between Russia, China, and their relevant Balkan partners in pioneering a new route for their megaprojects than initially meets the eye.

Another factor to keep in mind is that Zaev has been very unfriendly towards the Chinese since his installation into power and even “delayed” two Beijing-funded road projects in a clear signal of hostility against the People’s Republic, likely done at the behest of his American backers. The Chinese are wise enough to know that leaders come and go, especially those pushed into power through a “constitutional-electoral coup”, but Beijing might think twice about Macedonia’s future political stability just like Moscow appears to be doing and make the decision to accept the added financial and transport costs in rerouting its famed high-speed rail project through what it expects will be the much more stable country of Bulgaria instead.

By and large, the geostrategic situation doesn’t look promising at all for Macedonia, and Russia and China’s contemplation of alternative routes for their multipolar Balkan megaprojects appears to be much more than just a knee-jerk reaction to Zaev. Rather, these Great Powers seem to be signaling that they expect the country to enter into a period of prolonged political unrest, or at the very least, be indefinitely kept in a blackmailed position whereby the Damocles’ Sword of Albanian Hybrid War threateningly hangs over the head of every Macedonian and their international partners.

For this reason, it looks unlikely that Russia will include Macedonia in its Balkan Stream plans, and there’s a chance that China might feel the same way too given how Greece and Bulgaria’s new railway plans open up another alternative for it as well. The strengthening of the Greco-Bulgarian Strategic Partnership is designed to make both countries the indispensable replacement for Russia and China’s much-needed access to Serbia, the Balkan pivot state, and this contributes to giving both Great Powers an enticing option for avoiding what they might predict will be the enduringly uncertain situation in Macedonia for years to come.

None of this, however, would have been possible had Zaev not worked with the US to illegally seize power in his homeland and take Macedonia down the radical path of a de-facto internal partition, which when combined with the government’s capitulation to this demographic’s demands, is the reason why Russia and China are reluctant to have their multipolar Balkan megaprojects transit through the country. Not only has Zaev harmed Macedonia’s grand strategic interests in this way, but he’s also sold its remaining national ones to Bulgaria through the recent treaty with it and looks to be on the verge of betraying his people’s very identity through what many have speculated is an imminent behind-the-scenes deal with Greece.

Tragically, Zaev has empowered his country’s two rivals to join together in forming what might soon turn out to be the Greco-Bulgarian cornerstone of Russia and China’s multipolar inroads to Europe, thereby threatening to relegate Macedonia into geostrategic obscurity in the emerging Multipolar World Order aside from being a ticking unipolar time bomb for disrupting its Balkan component sometime in the 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 global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

On September 11, 2017, we launched the “Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act” — and we need your help to do it. In addition to our news conference and our visit to Capitol Hill, it will take thousands of you to help ensure that every member of Congress learns about the Bobby McIlvaine Act this week.

Washington, D.C., on September 11th, we held a press conference and the National Press Club. 1:00 PM news conference (you can also help by sharing our media advisory). On September 12th we delivered the Bobby McIlvaine package to all 535 members of Congress. Please email [email protected] with “RSVP” in the subject line for details on when and where to meet.

If you have enough time, you can even download the Bobby McIlvaine package and mail it to your three representatives, which we strongly encourage!

Our aim is to have at least 1,000 people contact their representatives by the end of the week. This way, we will put the Bobby McIlvaine Act on the radar of hundreds of congresspeople and senators during the time of year when it means the most. If you go with snail mail, please notify us at [email protected] (for emails, we will know automatically how many are sent).

Of course, we all know that these efforts won’t bear fruit immediately and that a congressional investigation is only one of several avenues we must pursue. But if we are going to obtain a new investigation, we must put our stake in the ground now and begin rallying support for a message that millions of people can believe in. Our first goal, then, is to have the Act introduced within one year. With your support, we’re confident we can get there.

A Note about the New Website: As you’ll notice, the Bobby McIlvaine Act page is one of several pages we’re making available from our nearly-finished website. We’re a month or two away from unveiling the handsome new site in its entirety. So stay tuned!

WTC 7 Study Update

Earlier this week, Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave his much-anticipated presentation on the findings and conclusions detailed in the September 2017 progress report of his team’s two-year study into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

A video of the presentation is now on AE911Truth’s YouTube channel, and the September 2017 progress report is on the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ website.

The presentation and report describe a substantial amount of new analysis conducted by the UAF team over the past six months — analysis that demonstrates in great detail how NIST arrived at false conclusions by using inaccurate assumptions and omitting certain structural features from its WTC 7 model.

Dr. Hulsey also explained that his team has conducted significant analysis of the building’s global response to various hypothetical local failures and that the findings of that analysis — which is nearing completion — will be detailed in the draft report, to be released later this fall.

The study once again received positive coverage from the public radio station in Fairbanks. We believe the favorable local reception is a precursor to the kind of response Dr. Hulsey’s draft report, final report, and journal articles will eventually garner throughout the world.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the hundreds of dedicated activists who have supported the WTC 7 study since the beginning.

For more information about our September 11th events, visit our Events page.

After it emerged that sitting Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is now subject to investigation for alleged fraud and bribery – not least regarding his notorious clandestine deal with German Chancellor Angela Merkel re the multi-billion dollar supply of a fleet of nuclear-ready submarines to Netanyahu’s coalition government, his wife, Sara Netanyahu, is now reported to have been indicted on four counts of fraud for allegedly diverting some $100,000 in public funds for her family’s own personal use. 

An alleged family business of fraud, bribery, kickbacks and corruption are not exactly the type of ‘friends’ with whom Britain should be negotiating bilateral arms deals worth millions of pounds that could conceivably adversely affect UK national security.

The state of Israel is the only secret nuclear weapons state in the world, and one that is outside the inspection of the IAEA  – but a regime with which Prime Minister Theresa May together with the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby group, [CFI], are inexplicably linked with bilateral military deals.

May and Netanyahu are not only strange bedfellows but constitute a dangerous liaison that could well set fire to the bedclothes. So why carry out bilateral military trade with this non-European, non-NATO, Middle Eastern, undeclared nuclear weapons state that could, if it wished, blow Britain out of the water?

Are there matters of national security of which the British electorate should really be more aware, and adequately informed? In particular, why is Theresa May not dealing with NATO suppliers/manufacturers of military equipment, for Britain’s armed forces?

Featured image is from Kobi Gideon/GPO.

The bill in Congress to fund U.S. intelligence services includes a provision, Sec. 623, which states:

SEC. 623. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON WIKILEAKS.

It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.

In other words: if this bill passes, Wikileaks will be categorized by U.S. Intelligence in the same way as will the intelligence services of Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other countries that the U.S. Government wants to conquer.

(Whereas the Cold War ended in 1991 on the Russian side, it secretly has continued on the American side.) Cooperation with Wikileaks would then be treated by the U.S. Government as treachery, the same as cooperation with Soviet intelligence was treated when the Republican Joseph R. McCarthy (backed by the Democratic Party’s Kennedy family) held sway over the U.S. Senate, from 9 February 1950 to  9 March 1954. Though this was the situation during the Cold War (prior to its having been ended by Russia in 1991), the time when there existed an authentic ideological reason for the U.S. Establishment’s opposition to the Soviet Union’s ruling Establishment (and when there existed not only the ongoing thirst for conquest of the entire world by the U.S. aristocracy), America’s Establishment (the aristocracy and its agents) is trying to restore that hostility now, 26 years after 1991, which was the year when the Soviet Union broke up, and after which, only Russia remained, and when communism had ended, and when the Soviet Union’s military alliance with the Soviet Union’s surrounding nations, the Warsaw Pact (mirroring America’s NATO), also ended — all of that happening in 1991. 

This fake-‘populist’ and fake-‘patriotic’ ostracism of Wikileaks would then bring the U.S. even closer to being the police-state (dictatorship by the aristocracy) than it already is — even more totalitarian than the U.S. Government now is. (And the U.S. already has a higher percentage of its population in prison than does any other nation. So, the steps that are being taken now, are beyond extreme — especially if this bill passes unamended.)

The real question that is being posed by this attempt to link future funding, of the U.S. regime’s intelligence agencies, to the aristocracy’s already near-monopoly on the reporting of international ’news’ and of domestic politics, is: Will the U.S. aristocracy unite behind it, as they already have virtually united behind the attempts to conquer Russia, and to conquer any nation that’s friendly toward Russia, such as Syria? 

Ever since the U.S. regime and its ‘news’media lied about ‘WMD in Iraq’ and said blatantly false things about Iraq such as that the IAEA had just reported “they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon”, and invaded and destroyed Iraq on that basis, it is clear that the U.S. is a dictatorship, not a democracy. The U.S. Government is doing what the Nazi German Government did starting in 1939 — invading foreign countries on the basis of lies — and for which the Nazis were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Tribunals after WW II.

The opening statement by the Chief Prosecutor for the United States, at Nuremberg, set forth the fundamental principle of international law, upon the basis of which the Nazis were to be tried:

An “aggressor” is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions [including]: … Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state, [such as the U.S. did to Iraq on 20 March 2003; and, it also includes perpetrating a coup, by means of] Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another state [such as the U.S., under President Eisenhower, was soon to do, by overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1953 and so, “giving the United States and Great Britain the lion’s share of Iran’s oil. In return, the US massively funded the Shah’s resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah’s overthrow in 1979.”]. …

It is the general view that no political, military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression [so, for example, Iranians’ taking back control of their country in 1979 and ousting the foreign oil companies was not, at all, ‘aggression’, despite U.S. lies saying it was].

It is upon such an understanding of the law that our evidence of a conspiracy to provoke and wage an aggressive war is prepared and presented. By this test each of the series of wars begun by these Nazi leaders was unambiguously aggressive.

It is important to the duration and scope of this Trial that we bear in mind the difference between our charge that this war was one of aggression and a position that Germany had no grievances. We are not inquiring into the conditions which contributed to causing this war. They are for history to unravel. It is no part of our task to vindicate the European status quo as of 1933, or as of any other date. The United States does not desire to enter into discussion of the complicated pre-war currents of European politics, and it hopes this trial will not be protracted by their consideration. The remote causations avowed are too insincere and inconsistent, too complicated and doctrinaire to be the subject of profitable inquiry in this trial.

Anyone who would want to know the detailed historical background of the present effort (such as in Congress’s funding-bill for the intelligence-services), by the U.S. aristocracy, to clamp down in their control over the ‘news’ that their victims see and hear, will find extremely enlightening the masterful 28,000-word report by Nafeez Ahmed, titled “How the CIA Made Google”. One can certainly call a Government like that an “empire,” but to continue calling it a ‘democracy’ would reflect nothing more than one’s being fooled by that regime.

For example: this news-report is being sent to TIME, the New York Times, Washington Post, The Nation, The Atlantic, and all news-networks and other major ‘news’media in the U.S., but if you web-search the title here, “Bill in Congress to Fund CIA & NSA Outlaws Wikileaks” and look to see how many of them are actually publishing it, the count will be zero, unless one or more of them breaks from the past, and suddenly decides to transform itself by publishing an article from me (and I’ve sent them so many) exposing them all as being the propaganda-vehicles that they’ve all been — at least, until now.

Perhaps if this is to be, in the United States, “freedom of the press,” then Americans will instead need freedom from the press.

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

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation where the featured image was sourced.

It’s been almost one hundred years since the Balfour Declaration and we are still trying to “understand” Zionism and Jewish supremacy in Palestine.

For a long time, what stood in the way of full understanding is the desire in Jewish intellectual circles on the left to fuse Zionism and Socialism in the belief that such a fusion would achieve so-called “Jewish national and social redemption” and at the same time be universally humanist toward Palestinian Arabs — in other words, the desire to view Zionism as “complicated” and give it validation through a critical perspective while at the same time insisting on its invaluable contribution to Jewish national development.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Zionist delegation, “well versed in Western diplomacy and psychology”, rested their claims over Palestine on the promise contained in the Balfour Declaration as well as on various religious, historic and humanitarian “rights”. At the time, these Zionists, while careful to continue to use the term Jewish “national home” rather than Jewish state, contended that a Jewish Palestine with Jewish capital and know-how would be to the benefit of backward Arabs, ‘long oppressed by the Turks.”

This Ashkenazi man’s burden extended to indigenous Arab Jews as well, who at the time were a small minority in Palestine before their forced emigration to Israel in the 1950s from other Arab countries. Regardless of deceptive declarations around British aims in Palestine, Zionist goals were never “the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous population” that Great Britain supposedly espoused in a Nov 8, 1918 communiqué representing the British and French governments that was proclaimed throughout the Levant, including Palestine.

The majority of Jews in the world today are Ashkenazim, tracing their ancestry to Europe. In Israel, however, Sephardic Jews, who descend from Jews in Spain and North Africa, and Mizrahi Jews, who descend from Middle Eastern (i.e., Arab) Jews, account for “just over half (52%) of the Jewish population. There is also a small population (approximately 125,000) of Ethiopian Jews who account for 1% of the Israeli Jewish population.”

Smadar Lavie, author of Wrapped in the Flag of Israel, writes about:

… the paradox that allows the majority of the world to ignore the Mizrahi problem in Israel. While 85% of world Jewry are Ashkenazim, they mainly reside in the diaspora. 15% of world Jewry are Mizrahim, and almost all of them reside in Israel. I discuss the implications of this paradox on the Israeli Ashkenazi Left’s ability to hide its racism when this Left talk with pro-Palestinian NGOs in the West and with the Palestinian national elite in the WB and Gaza… Nothing is going to move toward resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict without taking into account Israel’s Mizrahi majority and their continual support of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Right, stemming out of the racist history of Israel’s Zionist Left.

The Mizrahim have a history of inequality in Israel, “based on the eugenics ideologies and practices of the Ashkenazi establishment”, with the Israeli Labor Party openly referring to the 1990s Jewish emigration to Israel by Ashkenazim from the former Soviet Union as the “white ‘alliya” meant to redeem the Jewish state from Mizrahization.

But again, we have a “complicated” situation here:

… The third generation of Mizrahim in Israel, those born in the 1970s whose parents and grandparents immigrated to Israel with the large wave of immigration in the 1950s, has mixed feelings toward its Mizrahi identity. For many, the lines between Mizrahim and Ashkenazim are blurring. Mizrahim and Ashkenazim, for the most part, study together, are enlisted together in the army, and often marry one another [On this last point, Lavie says, “All current demographers — some even of the Ashkenazi Zionist species — debunk “mixed marriages” between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim as a myth. Present rate of such marriages is 24–28%”.]

The Jewish state is in the business of brainwashing its Jewish citizens of all backgrounds (as well as Jews worldwide, the vast majority of whom are Ashkenazim). Renee Leavy, manager of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) South Florida’s social media campaign, writes:

Judaism teaches, that we should be willing to sacrifice our lives rather than commit murder, commit adultery or worship idols. [But] How many [Jewish] teenagers, especially those who grew up in the Israeli school system who have been brainwashed to believe that Arabs are subhuman are capable of thinking like that?

To help us understand the ins-and-outs of Zionism fully, the shameful realities of Israeli Jewish society, including Apartheid, had to be called out, one by one, dissected and analyzed, their “complications” often obscuring the heart of the matter — Palestinian suffering and dispossession — and putting the focus on Jewish identity politics.

Today in discourse about Palestine we have new “complications” having to do with internal differences among Israeli Jews and with the imperative of being consistent ethically and intellectually.

Ran Greenstein, author of Zionism and its Discontents: A Century of Radical Dissent in Israel/Palestine, expressed these new dynamics in a Facebook status as “Two self-defeating pseudo-radical strategies of ‘call out’ politics in Israel/Palestine”:

(1) conflating Zionism with ‘Zionists’, thereby excluding those willing to act on the basis of opposition to current Israeli state practices (post-1967), because they do not share a critique of earlier historical practices. Result: elevating the radical leftist credentials of the caller out (call outer?), while diminishing the potential for a broader action-based front here and now. And

(2) refusing to protest current manifestations of racism and state oppression (towards Palestinians, African asylum seekers and others), together with ‘white’ leftists, because of the historical sins of the Zionist left against Mizrahim. Result: elevating the radical Mizrahi credentials of call-out activists, who end up serving as useful idiots for the Israeli state and its oppressive practices at present.

We have catchphrases in the above (“conflating Zionism with Zionists”? Really?) that may make us feel clever but that needlessly complicate, in my view, our understanding of Zionism and Zionists (past and present) and the strategies that ought to be open for all those struggling to achieve Palestine’s liberation.

It is true that recognition of the brutalities of the ongoing Jewish-state-Nakba and explanations of its cause, which have been taking place among activists on social and alternative media for a long time now, have not translated into policies or concerns in the United States and the EU (let alone in Israel) for the well-being of Palestinian Arabs. Chances are good that joining a “broader action-based front”, admirable and exhilarating as this movement is, will also fail to question the normative principles and narratives associated with Zionism — i.e. Jewish supremacy in Palestine.

This is because, beyond self-interest politics, I believe that at the heart of the resistance of Western countries to justice in Palestine is the underlying and pervasive concern for Ashkenazi Jews, stemming from the trauma of the holocaust.

This position is ingrained even as it flies in the face of the very international laws these Western countries have themselves put in place.

The context of broader global social dynamics can work only if we address the particularity of the Jewish nationalist movement in Palestine — i.e., both its colonial and Jewish supremacist character — leading us to a position that embraces “the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous population” of Palestine.

It will not work if we begin making distinctions between Zionism and Zionists! Ran Greenstein writes,

“These people [liberal-left tendencies (Meretz in Israel, J Street in the USA, and many unaffiliated individuals and organizations)]define themselves as Zionist but deviate, to some extent at least, from some of the core policies pursued by mainstream Zionist movements and the State of Israel… There is no need for perfect agreement on all issues, tactical collaboration would serve us well.”

The core policy in the liberation of Palestine is that of return, which means the end of the Jewish state. Any Zionist who espouses the Zionist core ideology that Palestine belongs to Jews worldwide and not to its indigenous inhabitants, regardless of religion or ethnicity, is a Zionist without a difference in my view. Tactical alliances with such Zionists are bound to lead to another decade or two of obfuscation regarding the “rights” of Ashkenazi Jews to Palestine.

Fighting to make Israel “Jewish and Democratic”, rather than one truly democratic state for all, is a no starter for the liberation of Palestine. As Wayne Kraft, an American BDS activist, wrote on Facebook:

Those who believe that the occupation must be ended first to alleviate the most savage abuses must contend with the fact that the occupation has only been strengthened throughout all attempts to resolve and end it. That is, if the two-state solution is the only possible solution (interim or otherwise), well, it doesn’t appear to be possible.

The end of Israel— i.e., the end of Jewish Supremacy in Palestine is not only the ultimate goal; it is the only goal that will bring justice and liberation to Palestine after all these decades.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

Featured image: The Pacific Northwest has been engulfed in wildfire smoke from Montana, British Columbia, Eastern Washington and Oregon for much of this summer. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

Featured image: Victoire Ingabire (Source: Friends of Victoire)

I spoke to Joseph Bukeye, an officer of Victoire Ingabire’s FDU-Inkingi party in Brussels, Belgium.

Ann Garrison: What danger is Victoire Ingabire facing now in her seventh year in prison?

Joseph Bukeye: Starvation. She requires a special diet which has been provided by our staff since her arrest. Two people have been authorized to see her, but they have both been arrested. No one else is allowed to see her.

AG: And what’s your source of information about this?

JB: Her lawyer and our own sources.

AG: Five more members of your party, FDU-Inkingi, have been arrested in Kigali, as has at least one member of another opposition party. Do you have any word of them?

JB: A total of 10 members of our party have been arrested plus one from our sister party PDP-Imanzi. Three of ours, the driver, the security guard, and the house worker, were set free yesterday. Family members were denied access to the seven still detained. Our lawyer managed to see two of them today.

AG: Diane Rwigara, the woman who attempted to challenge Paul Kagame for the presidency this year, has also been arrested, so this seems to be part of a wider crackdown on any opposition. Do you have any idea why it is happening now?

JB: It is indeed a well orchestrated campaign to uproot the opposition. Kagame has just managed to get himself “re-elected,” and he doesn’t want any dissenting voices from any corner. He is facing growing dissent within his own party and he does not want to have to face the opposition parties on another front. He does not care whether the opposition is Hutu or Tutsi; he just wants to stifle it. His relations with neighbours are souring, and his plan to oust Burundi’s leadership has failed. He fears retaliation.

AG: Do you know when the regional African Court of Human and People’s Rights might rule on Victoire’s appeal of her sentence in Rwanda?

JB: Very soon. Probably during the ongoing session of the court. Kagame no doubt sees that coming soon and feels more embattled. The court has no enforcement authority, but a ruling in Victoire’s favor will further damage his image.

AG: What can anyone do to help Victoire and the other opposition leaders in prison or detention?

JB: People can attempt to turn press attention to the situation and ask their governments to demand that the prisoners are all given due process, The US and the UK are the top donors to Rwanda, so it is especially important to contact them.  Ask them to demand due process, fair trials, and access to subsistence commodities for the prisoners as long as they are detained. They can also object to the West’s double standard regarding Rwanda and Burundi. Western governments, with the help of the UN Human Rights Council, are pushing for an ICC indictment of Burundian officials, when the human rights abuse in Rwanda is much worse.

Almost ten days have passed since the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the allied forces managed to break the siege on Deir Ezzor city, which was maintained by terrorists since 2014. This date undoubtedly will be incorporated into school textbooks and immortalized forever for all the Syrians.

Unfortunately, besides the true allies of the Syrian government, neither Western states nor human rights organization has offered assistance to the residents of the liberated city. It seems that this significant event for the Syrians exactly gone unnoticed by the mass media around the world.

We can confidently assume that the groundless accusations of the West against the Syrian authorities regarding the alleged massacre of its nation and the use of chemical weapons are unlikely to end. The point is that such accusations of the Western countries are basically a potential opportunity to implement its own strategic interests and plans in the region.

When it comes to real help to the resident of the besieged Raqqa or newly liberated Deir Ezzor, the Western charities merely disappear, trying not to notice population’s problems.

Consequently, the fate of the Syrian population, as well as the fate of other countries, where Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch operate, does not really care about them. These organizations pursue completely different tasks, which are frequently aimed at breaking up Syria, and the problems of the local population are only means to achieve these tasks. In this context the duplicity of human rights defenders perfectly complements the established tradition of Western countries to support terrorists.

At the same time, playing a double game is very convenient as you will never lose face or become a loser. Feeling the defeat of your subordinates, you can always change the political vector. Washington is a striking example, whose efforts are now supposedly focused on combating terrorism, rather on overthrowing Bashar Assad.

It logically follows that as soon as all terrorists group are completely eliminated, the international coalition will be forced to leave Syria, without the right to interfere in the policy of the country. Unfortunately, such a scenario is hardly possible.

Under the circumstances, the Syrian government has only one way to get rid of Western and Middle Eastern ‘partners’ interference – to defeat ISIS on its own. Having cleared the territory of the country from the illegal armed groups, President Assad will not leave an excuse for the illegal presence of ‘humanitarian’ institutions and international coalitions on Syrian soil.

Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent and co-editor at Inside Syria Media Center where this article was originally published.

Global Research announces the forthcoming release of  the print edition of Mark Taliano’s Book, “Voices from Syria”  which includes two additional chapters. 

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

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

Special Pre-Publication Offer

**Pre-Order Special Offer: Voices from Syria (Ships mid-September)

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 2 new chapters)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

The Canadian-Venezuelan Sociologist, Dr. Maria Páez Victor explains, in the following interview, the National Constituent Assembly in the context of the Bolivarian Revolution, the US boycott through an economic and media warfare.

“The achievements of the Bolivarian government will not be televised by the international media, because they show the failure of the neo-liberal ideas of development”, says the researcher.

Edu Montesanti: The National Constituent Assembly (NCA) has decided to assume partially Congressional duties. What are your thoughts on this, Professor Doctor Maria Páez, especially as the mainstream media and the Washington regime have been accusing President Nicolás Maduro of anti-democratic for promoting it. It is worth pointing out that you have said that there is a defamation campaign against Venezuela, specifically against the NCA itself: please detail each lie that has been said against the Bolivarian government, regarding the NCA.

Dr. Maria Páez Victor: What would happen in the USA (or any other democracy) if its Congress or Parliament refused to obey a sentence of the Supreme Court?

What would happen in the USA (or any other democracy) if its Congress or Parliament decided not to concern themselves to passing laws but to overthrow the legitimate elected President, all this while the country faced serious economic and security problems? You would, without a doubt have a political gridlock, a mayor institutional crisis.

Well, the National Assembly of Venezuela –in which the opposition has the majority having won those seats in the last congressional elections- took all of these undemocratic decisions.

When the opposition won the majority in the National Assembly in January of 2016, its president, Ramos Allup declared that they were not there to pass laws, but “to get rid of Maduro and his government”, declaring itself in rebellion against the Executive Power.

This un-democratic stance then created the crisis that started on the 29th of July 2016 when the National Assembly declared itself in rebellion against sentence of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declared that 3 deputies could not be sworn in because of the blatant irregularities in their election and therefore there had to be by-election in that state.

The National Assembly refused to obey this order, and so, the Supreme Court had to declare all the acts of the National Assembly null and void until such time that it disallows these three persons. Later on, the second president of the National Assembly, Julio Borges declared publicly that the Assembly was “in open rebellion” and that it will not recognize the Supreme Court of Venezuela. In other words, the Legislature Power was in rebellion against the Judicial and Executive Power.

The National Assembly has proceeded to act as if it were a parallel government, even going to foreign countries and international banks asking for Venezuela to be sanctioned and blackballed and even asking help to overthrow the government. The opposition in Venezuela created a crisis that has put the state institutions in peril.

At the same time, there was an economic crisis promoted by the opposition and foreign powers, paramilitary attacks on the frontier, and violent street insurrections in certain city sections. President Maduro asked the National Assembly for help to jointly to face these problems but they refused to work with the Executive, insisting only that the president resign.

President Maduro could have taken the anti-democratic measure of suspending guarantees of civil rights, but instead opted for the most democratic of all decisions: he called for a Constitutional Assembly (CA) that would amend the constitution to deal with these serious problems and cut off the legal loopholes that sustained those problems.

The opposition coalition, the MUD, immediately realized the checkmate that this would mean. Therefore it used all its arsenal of weapons including its considerable foreign media connections to prevent the election of a CA.

Firstly it alleged that an elected CA was anti-democratic. It was akin to accusing the Pope of not being a Catholic. There is no higher democratic power than the will of the people represented in an assembly, and there is a cornerstone of international law that states that countries have the inalienable right to make their own laws, particularly if done through properly elected representatives.

Secondly, the opposition told the international press that the CA was simply a ploy so that President Maduro could make himself president for life and would eliminate elections forever in the country. They completely failed to acknowledge the 9 specific areas that of the mandate of the CA that do not include the terms of office for the president. It is quite absurd that having had 20 clean election in 18 years the Bolivarian government was about to give up on elections, especially as Jimmy Carter (Carter Foundation) has stated that Venezuela’s electoral process is the best in the world.

This is a blatant as the CA has a specified the mandate to deal with 9 specific priority issues, none of which pertain to the prolonging of presidential terms. These issues were not pressing or even existent in 1999 when the current Constitution was drafted: how to deal with the economic crisis, how to maintain security in the face of the growth of narco-traffic groups, paramilitary groups, urban terrorism and impunity, how to institutionalized the anti-poverty programs (misiones), how to preserve the rights of victims of crimes, the need to prepare a post-oil economy, climate change, the rights of homosexuals/ transgendered people, youth and disabled persons.

The representatives to the CA were chosen not as members of parties, but from among citizens who put their name forward as individuals. There were two categories of representatives: those who wished to represent the area where they lived, and those that wished to represent one of the special sectors: workers, businessmen, youth, women, disabled people, communal counsels, and indigenous peoples.

Most of the main parties that compose the MUD decided (in their un-wisdom) that they would not support the election of representatives to the new CA. However, many smaller opposition parties did decide to encourage members to stand for election.

The MUD tried to cast a pall over the elections alleging that it was a fraudulent election yet presented not one shred of evidence of this. All the international election witnesses confirmed that the process occurred without any distortion or bias.

What did happen and was not reported was that in many sections of the country this anti-democratic and violent opposition tried its best to prevent people from voting, even with the use of firearms. The international press did not once criticize the opposition for these appalling anti-democratic actions.

When the CA then met, it did NOT dissolve the National Assembly, which theoretically it had it in its power to do. The CA declared that it would work with the National Assembly and asked it to meet in joint session, but the National Assembly refused to meet with it. Instead, the National Assembly declared that it did not recognize the CA at all. It is utterly astonishing that it would disregard 8,089,320 million voters, who elected the CA.

Faced with this blatant insurrection, the CA passed a decree allowing it to pass the laws that are needed to meet the most pressing, vital problems that are threatening the State itself.

The CA got up and running. One of the first things it did was to fire the Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz based on a mountain of evidence that linked her and her husband, a National Assembly Deputy, German Ferrer office with a vast network of blackmail and dereliction of duty.

The people could not understand why the violent protestors that during four long months created havoc and terror on the streets were not arrested, or if arrested, let off on flimsy excuses. Crimes against public safety and peace that would never have been tolerated in any other nation, in Venezuela went unpunished and unchecked. It was the foreign companies of the petroleum belt that blew the whistle on Ortega Diaz, as she was black mailing them for millions of dollars.

In the end, it was recently discovered she was working with the Justice Department of the USA to maintain the street insurrections un checked.

Another of the measures taken by the CA to maintain peace was the creation of the Commission of Truth, Justice and Public Peace which is in charge of determining the political and moral responsibilities of those found guilty of the violent actions that have plagued the nation since 1999.

The Law Against Hate, Intolerance and Peaceful Conviviality is now under consideration. These are a direct result of the urban terrorism unleashed during the past April through June that left 100 people dead and the overt racist and classist tone that accompanied these vile acts.

To summarize:

• The President of Venezuela has the clear an unequivocal right to call for a Constitutional Assembly: articles 347, 348, 349 of the Constitution.
• The representatives to the CA were freely elected among citizens, not parties, in a clean, transparent and orderly election process totally backed by all the international electoral witnesses.
• There were citizens who opposed the government who stood for election, although they may not have won the votes. The Opposition umbrella organization MUD refused to participate.
• The National Assembly was not dissolved. It was invited to join the CA in dealing with pressing threats to the State. Having declined even to recognize the CA, the CA then had to assume some lawmaking powers in order to preserve the peace and security of the nation.

EM: Highlight please the principal lies against the Revolution in general, through years.

DMPV: Describing true facts:

Since 1999 when Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela, the wealthy elite that ran that country for 40 years conspired to delegitimize him and depose him. The USA was and still is, their stalwart partner in this, along with its allied nations and corporations. There is ample proof that the State Dept orchestrated the coup of 2002, which overthrew President Chavez for 48 hours. These facts were later confirmed through information from the FOI and through through Wikileaks.

Upon the death of President Chavez, the conspiracy became virulent as the USA and its allies thought that President Maduro would be easier to overthrow. The fall of petroleum process increased their hopes. Apart from Cuba, no other Latin American country has had the full force of the spectrum of “fourth generation war “which includes terrorism, media manipulation, economic destabilization, low intensity conflict, and psychological warfare.

The psychological and media campaign centred on the person of Chavez, and later the person of Maduro: alleging they are dictators (despite clean elections), they are autocratic (“its not a question only of election but how they govern”), and with Maduro the outrageous media campaign that has seen the most violent and despicable terrorism of the opposition being presented to the public as if they were carried out by the government. It has been a grotesque twisting of the truth. The international media has lost any sense of balanced reporting when it comes to Venezuela; they are prostituting their once esteemed profession.

The economic war the USA and its allies in the elites and corporations have unleashed on the country has been brutal: whole-scale warehousing of goods, corporate smuggling by the millions, black market manipulations, pressuring international banks and rating agencies against the country, artificial scarcity of goods, the sabotaging of the electric and water systems, the paramilitary assassinations, the street violence.

Venezuela should be lauded for defending the rule of law, not tarred with malicious fake news. But its government is sitting on top of the Hemisphere’s largest oil reserves and it repudiates the policies of the cannibalistic neo-liberal capitalism. So for the USA State Department and its supine allies and greedy corporations, Venezuela must be defied, deposed and defamed.

EM: How could it be explained that Venezuela’s NCA is the most democratic event all over the world, so popular as the members of NCA are ordinary citizens, not hand picked elites or individuals chosen by parties, at the same time so attacked by the United States, its allies and the mainstream media?

DMPV: The USA and the right wing governments of Latin America are, in fact, not concerned with a lack of democracy in Venezuela even though this is the slogan that they continuously 43 repeat to the media.

Hypocrisy is quite blatant:

Why are they not concerned over democracy in Saudi Arabia where people are beheaded and women cannot vote or stand for election?

Why are they not concerned with democracy in Mexico where 43 students in Ayotzinapa in 2014 disappeared and where 300 journalists have been killed since 1980?

Why are they not concerned with democracy in Colombia where in the last 38 years 152 journalists have been killed and since 1977 there have been 3,000 unionists killed?

They are worried about the PARTICIPATORY nature of democracy in Venezuela: i.e., the fact that the Bolivarian option has won the 18 of the 20 different elections that Venezuela has had in the last 19 years. They are worried that other people -of Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, the USA or Spain- may want to re-write their constitution also.

The establishment of an elected Constitutional Assembly is entirely within international law: countries have the inalienable right to write their own laws, unhindered.

These last few years have demonstrated to Venezuelans that their 1999 Constitution, written within a neo-liberal framework, has loopholes that do not help with the pressing economic crisis, the terrorist and paramilitary problem, and the problem of rogue opposition that disregards the rule of law and seeks foreign intervention to overthrow the government.

EM: Your evaluation please on the OAS’s position against Venezuela, now and long ago contradicting its own chart – the UN has been quite silenced, too… No consistent position on the Venezuelan case.

DMPV: On 28 March 2017, Luis Almagro, the director of the Organization of American States (OAS) called for Venezuela to be suspended from the OAS opening the way for foreign intervention in Venezuela, alleging a violation of democratic principles.

This is the same OAS that kept silent about the coup d’etat against President Chavez in 2002, the parliamentary coups d’etat in Brazil and Paraguay, the coup d’etat in Honduras, which has kept silent on the hideous assassinations of students and journalists in Mexico, and the multitude of human rights violations of labour unionists in Colombia.

The Venezuelan National Assembly publicly supported this outrageous proposal. Almagro failed, as he could not get such a decision passed at the OAS.

Almagro – embarrassingly like a Latin American version of Uriah Heep – is at the beck and call of the USA and its satellite right-wing governments of the region. But he cannot get past the real fact that Venezuela is not alone and the majority of the OAS will not side with the forces that bolster a continued colonization of the region by the USA.

The Non-Aligned Nations of the UN, which represent 2/3 of all the countries of the world, have unequivocally backed the right of Venezuela to establish an elected Constitutional Assembly and write its own laws. The UN has also stated that Venezuela has the right to call a Constitutional Assembly and write its laws.

The UN will not be able to fully go against Venezuela because the country has international law on its side and the Non-Aligned Nations, who are not fooled by the manipulations of the great powers. Furthermore, both Russia and China have strongly supported Venezuela.

EM: The Washington regime has been for so long pressuring the Venezuelan revolutionary government: so what has maintained Persident Maduro in the presidency, as we see all over the world the US overthrowing democratic governments through color revolutions, or by the military force?

DMPV: The achievements of the Bolivarian government of Venezuela are real, tangible and impressive, they are the bedrock of its consistent public support. In 1999 Venezuela was a country although rich in oil, yet steeped in misery, high rates of malnutrition, maternal and infant mortality, high rates of school dropouts and illiteracy, high rate of poverty.

From the discovery of oil at the beginning of the last century, oil revenues were used in a corrupt manner by an unpatriotic elite and sold to the highest foreign bidder with little advantage to the country’s population.

Under Chavez and now Maduro, oil revenues are used to satisfy the social needs of the Venezuelans.

Poverty in Venezuela has been halved and the country, by mid-2014, boasted the highest average standard of living in Latin America. In 1999, half of the country was living under the poverty line, with 23 percent in “extreme poverty”.

By 2011, there were 23 percent poor and 8 percent in extreme poverty. No other country in modern history has accomplished that in just a decade. This triumph was accompanied by a huge increase in consumption and a drop in malnutrition from 13.5 percent in 1990 to 5 percent in 2010.

These dramatic domestic changes are mirrored by the changes in Venezuela’s foreign policy and activities. A genuinely independent foreign policy boosted Venezuela to a position of leadership in Latin America and made its oil reserves a source of political clout and a tool of international solidarity — as demonstrated by the vital petroleum contributions to several countries, including Cuba, made by its nationalized oil company: PDVSA.

The government also founded the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) whose 11 members — Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela — coordinate mutual economic support and serve as an alternative to the U.S. controlled Organization of American States.

• There are now 59 physicians for every 100, 000 inhabitantes when before there was barely 20
• Venezuela is now free of iliteracy, as UNESCO has verified and it has reached the educational Millenium goals
• In the past two years -despite the fall of oil prices- they have built 1.7 million public housing
• Poverty has diminished in half from levels that in 1999 were 50% – 80% in some areas to mid-20% and extreme poverty which affected 1/3 of the population has now been reduced to 4.5%
• The UN has acknowledged that Venezuela has achieved the Nutrition Goals of the Millennium having reduced the number of people with hunger. Between 1999 y 2015, more than 5 million people ceased to suffer hunger.
• There are more about 50,000 Communal Councils and Communes that now identify local needs and carry out many economic and social investments
• The UN– Habitat declared that Venezuela is one of the countries in the region that most have reduced inequality according to the GINI Coefficient.

But the achievements of the Bolivarian government of Venezuela “will not be televised“ by the international media because they show the failure of the neo-liberal ideas of development, they show that the public socialist policies of government are strong enough to shield its population even from the economic war that the US and allies have unleashed against Venezuela.

While in Europe and North America the people have had to bear the brunt of the worldwide financial crisis with “adjustments” and “austerity” policies that have increased the total of people in poverty, in Venezuela, despite the economic crisis, the government of President Maduro has done everything in its power to shield the people by not cutting social benefits and distributing food and basic goods directly to the people at very subsidized prices.

The USA in particular wishes to undermine the regional integration of Latin America that is the cornerstone of the Venezuelan foreign policy. They do not want to see strong, independent nations in Latin America, but submissive nations that depend on the USA for everything: that is how they have dominated the region.

Venezuela is showing that the great defence against the great powers of the world is the participatory democracy of its people and regional integration and solidarity.

EM: What can we expect from the NCA?

DMPV: The Bolivarian government of Venezuela has demonstrably shown great political creativity.

• Its new constitution in 1999 inspired the new constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia.
• Its communal councils and communes have been the breadbasket of the people at a time when food was being hoarded, smuggled and made scarce by the economic war.
• The military-civil union has brought about a 180 degree change in the relationship of armed forces and civilians whereby harmony, solidarity and protection are pivotal, not repression.
• The Venezuelan efforts to achieve regional integration brought forth the innovative institutions of CELAC, UNASUR, PETROCARiBE, PETROSUR and TELESUR.

I expect of the Constitutional Assembly more creativity – especially in changing the neo-liberal legal framework that has allowed the country to have been taken to the edge of disaster by unscrupulous and unpatriotic elites that only seek their own gain and not the public good.

As Simon Bolívar’s good teacher, Simón Rodríguez said:

“We are either creative or we err.”

I expect great things from the citizens of the Constitutional Assembly.

Not for nothing the movement for the Independence of Latin America from the Spanish Empire was born in Caracas.

Maria Páez Victor is the author of “Liberty or Death! – the life and campaigns of Richard L. Vowell, British Legionnaire and Commander, hero and patriot of the Americas” (Tattered Flag, UK). [email protected]

Edu Montesanti is an independent analyst, researcher and journalist whose work has been published by Truth Out, Pravda, Global Research, Telesur, 9/11 Truth.org, Brazilian magazine Caros Amigos, and numerous other publications across the globe. www.edumontesanti.skyro ck.com

Another brutal war in the Middle East between Israel and Hezbollah is inevitable. Hezbollah remains a difficult adversary to defeat for Israel’s expansionist plans in the Middle East which is the ultimate goal. An important article published by Global Research in 2013 “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East” detailed Oded Yinon’s plan “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” translated by Israel Shahak outlines what Israel needed to do to become an imperial power in the Middle East:

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

There are several obstacles preventing Israel ‘s long-term plan to become a regional power including the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon and the grand prize, Iran. Iran is a major obstacle for Israel, however, in order for Israel to declare war on Iran (with U.S. backing of course), Hezbollah needs to be eliminated. It is an extremely difficult task for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to fight on multiple fronts, especially against a well-armed militia located on its northern borders with Lebanon. In 2006, as the world knows, Hezbollah defeated Israel. During the war, The New York Timesinterviewed an Israeli soldier at the height of the conflict and admitted that Hezbollah fighters as “highly qualified”:

Hezbollah is a militia trained like an army and equipped like a state, and its fighters “are nothing like Hamas or the Palestinians,” said a soldier who just returned from Lebanon. “They are trained and highly qualified,” he said, equipped with flak jackets, night-vision goggles, good communications and sometimes Israeli uniforms and ammunition. “All of us were kind of surprised”

Last April, Israel introduced to the world, David’s Sling, a US-Israeli missile interceptor made to counter Hezbollah’s arsenal of medium-range missiles. It is a clear sign that Israel is in preparation for the next long war against Hezbollah, who is an ally of Syria and Iran. The Independent, a London-based news source described ‘David’s Sling’ as follows:

David’s Sling, meant to counter medium-range missiles possessed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, officially became operational at the ceremony, the military said.  It marks the completion of the multi-tier system that includes the Arrow, designed to intercept long-range ballistic missiles in the stratosphere with an eye on Iran, and Iron Dome, which defends against short-range rockets from Gaza

A 10-day drill now taking place in Israel which is lead by the IDF. Haaretz reported on what the exercises’ entailed:

Israel’s army will be commencing its largest drill in 20 years in the north of the country on Tuesday, one that will encompass all forces: ground, air, sea and intelligence. The drill, which will be overseen by Israel Defense Forces’ Northern Command, is expected to last about 10 days.

It will include a scenario of instant escalation, in which the army has to defend Israel against multiple terrorist infiltrations in the north. For instance, one scenario has “terrorists” entering moshav Shavei Tzion, 15 kilometers from the Lebanese border, from the sea, while “Hezbollah” forces stage an attack by Gesher Benot Yaakov in the Golan Heights (and a famous prehistoric archaeological site). The army will also be practicing an attack on Lebanon and the evacuation of Israeli towns by the border in preparation for the eventuality of heavy missile attacks. It will include a scenario of instant escalation, in which the army has to defend Israel against multiple terrorist infiltrations in the north

It is a sign that Israel plans to eliminate Hezbollah, once and for all. According to the Haaretz report:

“The purpose of the drill is to test the fitness of the Northern Command and the relevant battalions during an emergency,” said a top IDF officer. In the drill scenario, the cabinet tells the armed forces to vanquish Hezbollah – “as I understand it, the state in which Hezbollah either has no ability or desire to attack anymore,” explained the officer”

Back in 2016, Haaretz first reported that Israel planned an evacuation involving more than 78,000 Israeli civilians in order to protect them against incoming missiles fired by Hezbollah in the event of an actual war. Make no mistake, the next war will between Israel and Hezbollah will be catastrophic. A nightmare for civilians on both sides of the conflict.

Hezbollah is an Obstacle, Destroying Iran is the Goal

The former deputy chief of IDF staff Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan spoke at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank based in Washington, D.C. and said:

For Israel, Iran is “much more threatening compared to the Daesh threat,” Golan asserted, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS, “because the Iranians are sophisticated, they are a higher form of civilization, they have a nice academic infrastructure, nice industry, good scientists, many talented young people. They are very similar to us,” he said. “And because they are similar to us, they are much, much more dangerous”

Iran is more dangerous than ISIS or Al-Qaeda? In fact, as we already know, ISIS has been funded and armed by the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia to destabilize and eventually to impose “regime change” in the Middle East as in the case of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad which ultimately failed. However, for Israel, destabilizing and eventually destroying Iran would be an ideal scenario. Israel’s vision for the Middle East is hegemony among its Arab neighbors. Iran plays an important role within the Middle East when it comes to economics and geopolitics, therefore it’s in Israel’s best interest to divide, conquer and even colonize Arab states along ethnic and sectarian lines.

Israel, America’s bulldog in the Middle East must face a major obstacle, and that obstacle is Hezbollah if it wants to become an Imperial power. War with Iran won’t happen anytime soon because Israel needs to permanently destroy and neutralize Hezbollah and even Syria before they take the next step against Iran. I believe the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party is psychotic enough to use their nuclear weapons to essentially destroy Iran. Would the Trump administration allow Israel to carry out such an attack? With Trump’s love for Israel as he stated in a 2016 speech at an American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) event, I believe he definitely would. Let’s hope world powers such as Russia and China can prevent such a war. The coming war between Israel and Hezbollah will be much worse than the last war in 2006, because Israeli officials see this as an open opportunity (especially with a staunch ally in President Donald Trump) to attack Hezbollah with everything in its arsenal. Hezbollah is prepared for the next long war with Israel as well. It will take center stage once it begins. A war with Iran won’t happen anytime soon as long as Hezbollah exists, making Israel’s imperial agenda only a dream that may not come true after all.

This article was originally published by Silent Crow News where the featured image was sourced.

Two of America’s most populous states, Texas and Florida, are in hurricane ruins, and Washington is fomenting more wars.

The US national debt is now over $20 trillion, and Washington is fomenting more wars.

The entire world is helping Washington foment wars—including two targeted countries themselves—Russia and China—both of which are helping Washington foment more wars.  Believe it or not, both Russia and China voted with Washington on the UN Security Council to impose more and harsher sanctions on North Korea, a country guilty of nothing but a desire to have the means to protect itself from the US and not become yet another  Washington victim like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Serbia, and Ukraine overthrown in a US coup and now poverty-stricken.

I once thought that Russia and China were checks on Washington’s unilateralism, but apparently not. Both governments have been knuckled under by Washington and both voted to punish North Korea for striving to be sufficiently armed to protect its sovereignty from Washington. 

Why are Russia and China repeating their same mistake that they made when they supported Washington’s no-fly UN resolution for Libya, a resolution that Washington and NATO stood on its head when they launched air attacks that helped the CIA organized “jihadists” overthrow Libya’s progressive government and murder Gaddafi?

Russia knows that it is surrounded by US nuclear and military bases. So does China. The question is: have Russia and China capitulated out of fear?  Or is their cooperation with Washington a ruse while they prepare their own strike on Washington, or are the two misguided governments trying to cooperate with Washington a la sanctions so as to avoid having to confront a US military attack on North Korea?

It requires much competence to confront evil, and there is probably more evil in Washington than there is competence in Russia and China, two countries interested in being rich to an extent that it might cost them their sovereignty and existence.

When you see such potentially powerful countries as Russia and China collapse under Washington’s pressure in the UN Security Council, it makes you wonder if the various analyses of Washington’s many weaknesses are real, and if they are real, if Russia and China are aware of them.

How does one go about explaining why two countries, whose sovereignty is in the way of Washington’s world hegemony, help their known enemy bully yet another small country, especially one in their orbit of influence? How can Russia complain of sanctions against Russia based on nothing but Washington’s propaganda when Russia supports sanctions against North Korea based on Washington’s propaganda?   

Russia and China have nothing to fear from North Korean nuclear weapons.  Indeed, no one does except a country that attacks North Korea.

What is the explanation for Russia and China lining up with Washington’s foreign policy against North Korea when Russia and China know that Washington’s foreign policy is hostile to Russia and China?

Just the other day Washington announced that it was increasing its navy warships in the South China Sea to make sure China doesn’t think the South China Sea is Chinese, instead of American, territorial waters.  Just the other day more election interfering charges were leveled against Russia. This time Facebook was the mechanism by which Russia stole the US presidential election.

These positions taken by Washington are absurd.  Yet, they are becoming the reality.  The frightening development is that the entire world, the entirely of the UN and Security Council are now captured by Washington in The Matrix.  It seems that not even Russia and China can any longer see their own national interest. 

Russia and China are working hand-in-hand with Washington toward their own demise.

It is becoming biblical. Washington the anti-Christ is subverting all good on earth.

Behold, a Pale Horse, and its Rider is Washington.

Featured image is from The issue.

I’m sitting outside a small café/bakery alongside Vienna’s Hauptbahnhof, the city’s main railway station. I’m between trains, on my way to Brussels from Krakow, and observing the scene. Concrete and glass rising-up everywhere in absolute neutered conformity. A ‘Novotel’ trying to make itself visible amongst the high-rises, but remaining hardly distinguishable from anything else.  A square featureless concrete carbuncle.

It’s 8 in the morning and it’s late August. A man in a dark business suit walks past on the wide pavement, a Coca Cola in one hand and two trim brown sandwich bags in the other. Chemtrails cover the otherwise blue sky. Someone in green shorts and dark glasses is sitting at a nearby table staring at nothing in particular and smoking nervously.

Meanwhile trains glide in and out of the elevated station platforms, their wining turbo-electric motors rising and falling as they come and go. This is the 2017 gateway into classical old Vienna.

In my mind I trace the steps of the ‘good European business-man’ with his US Coke and standardised EU sandwiches. I see him entering a large office block and taking a lift up to the 5th floor and proceeding to a white plastic cubicle with desk and computer. One of hundreds of identical cubicles. He sits down and turns on the modem, twisting off the cap of his Coca Cola bottle as he does so. The rest, as they say, is history. It’s the history of a dying capitalist dream. Of boredom, conformity and stagnation. A mediocrity so complete that it can be confirmed as insanity. Corporate, big brother contrived slavery.

So, I reflected, as I sat at this café table just outside Vienna’s Hauptbahnhof main station, I am observing a pastiche, a cameo of what is called ‘normality’, but I prefer to call ‘insanity’. The seemingly innocuous 9 to 5 office job is where millions devote a great proportion of their (precious) lives.

In reality – and tragically – they are no longer human beings, but automatons. They take the same train to work each day of the working week; or the same bus, the same car; the same car route. They do the same things each weekend. Meet the same people; watch the same films as their friends; eat at the same restaurants. They are called the ‘suburban middle class’ – but it means little or nothing. Little or nothing is pretty much the sum total of their lives.

George Orwell saw it all coming more than fifty years ago, describing it perfectly in this novel ‘1984’. Aldus Huxley likewise in ‘Brave New World’. But do we recognise this? Do we see to just what degree this dystopian cycle of daily death has captivated the great majority of the population of US and European ‘Westernised’ society?

Do we understand just how far removed from Life this stultifying daily ritual has actually taken people? I wonder.

You see, the hidden hand of oppression, whose ambition is total global dominance, is depending upon the fact that we all accept this slave trade as somehow inevitable. That we won’t ever see that it represents an advanced stage of mass insanity. And because of this, we are still vulnerable to its pull; especially those of us who think we are ‘free’. But such thinking is delusional; none of us are fully freed from the grip exerted by the dominant pattern of the status quo.

It is, after all, what informs almost everything we see and do every day of our lives. It screams at us (if we are ’alive’) in the supermarket; in the ‘gallery’; on the city street; on the billboards; in the fashion market; on the screens of our computers; the newspapers, TV, radio; the motorway; the airport; the hotel.

It works on us in an unseen way via Wi Fi; the mobile phone; the mobile phone towers; the ‘smart meters’; the satellite navigation systems; the surveillance cameras; the electro smog; the atmospheric geoengineering; the microwave oven; the genetically modified and pesticide laced food; the chlorinated and/or fluoridated water; the plastic mineral water bottle; the nanotech fabrics – the list goes on and on – but I think I’ve made my point.

Do you still think you’re free from mind control?

Listen carefully. There are just a few environments left in this post-industrial nation state and trading block divided ‘Westernised’ world – where you might still find some sanity. But you’ll need to be clear about what sanity is in order to locate them. If you’re still ‘alive’ and wish to stay that way, what you’re going to need is the support of some place where big brother has not yet got a total grip on the way of life. Not yet replaced simple reality with virtual reality.  A ‘virtual reality free zone’.

Chances are that you’re not going to find such a place in an urban setting. Towns and cities are being entrained as slave centres under Agenda 21 ambitions to shift whole populations into fully anaesthetised environments, 100% dependent upon corporate controlled resources. It is delusional to imagine that one can remain ‘sane’ in these cosmetically dressed prisons.

The way to retain your sanity, your joie de vivre, your sensitive soul and your resistance to that which wishes to ensnare you, is to re find your connection with nature: the natural environment. Preferably a largely uncontaminated nature; a nature that still breathes, that still lives out its predilection for diversity, beauty and rugged self-expression.

An environment where those who work the land still do so in the old native tradition, without the imposition of toxic pesticides and soil neutering monocultures.  Places where you still might find a bit of true wisdom. Places where you yourself might imbibe some of that wisdom and start on your own route to taking control of your destiny and ultimate self-sufficiency. Freeing yourself from the strangling tentacles of a subversive status quo with its ‘cult of convenience’.

A setting in which you elect to cultivate life rather than death. For staying with the latter means contributing to a system which leads, inevitably, to collapse. But that is, I’m afraid, what many of us are still doing – until we find a way to break free.

Make your stand in defence of life*, but make it in a place that offers the chance for ‘arks of true independence’ to become established. Places where one can be one’s own master and where a new resistance can rise up from fertile and secure foundations. Somewhere where one can help bring to birth the seeds of a new society.

I council you to make this shift soon. Very soon.

Julian is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer, international activist and president of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. He is author of two acclaimed titles *In Defence of Life and Changing Course for Life – you can find them on www.julianrose.info

Global Research strives for peace, and we have but one mandate: to share timely, independent and vital information to readers across the globe. We act as a global platform to let the voices of dissent, protest, and expert witnesses and academics be heard and disseminated internationally.

We need to stand together to continuously question politics, false statements, and the suppression of independent thought.

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation. (click image above to donate)

*     *     *

US Anti-BDS Legislation Punishes Solidarity with Palestine

By Stephen Lendman, September 13, 2017

Congressional Israel Anti-Boycott Act legislation wants it criminalized. It aims to “amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.”

How Palestinians Can Reverse Israel’s Divide and Conquer Tactics

By Sam Bahour, September 13, 2017

Oslo allowed Israel to reduce Palestinians to disparate fragments, each with their own challenge to merely survive. It’s time to reset that reality and view the Palestinians for what they are — physically fragmented, politically divided, but a whole people.

Israel: “There Is No Palestine”, It Cannot be Allowed to Join the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)

By Juergen T Steinmetz, September 12, 2017

From time to time, Israel puts more restrictions on tourism to Palestine, including disallowing western visitors to re-enter Israel when staying in a hotel in Palestine.

Israel to Remove Palestinian Village’s Sole Water Pipe

By Middle East Monitor, September 11, 2017

Daghlas said that the pipeline is the sole water source for the area. According to Wafa, 14 Palestinian families live in the area and depend on the pipeline.

Israel Campaigns Against Palestine Joining UN Tourism Body

By Middle East Monitor, September 10, 2017

Israel is attempting to thwart a Palestinian bid to join the United Nation’s World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), arguing that the “State of Palestine” does not exist, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was a non-teaching day for me. I was home when the phone rang at 9 A.M. It was my daughter, who was on a week’s vacation with her future husband. “Turn on the TV,” she said. “Why?” I asked.  “Haven’t you heard? A plane hit the World Trade Tower.”

I turned the TV on and watched a plane crash into the Tower. I said, “They just showed a replay.” She quickly corrected me, “No, that’s another plane.” And we talked as we watched in horror, learning that it was the South Tower this time. Sitting next to my daughter was my future son-in-law; he had not had a day off from work in a year. He had finally taken a week’s vacation so they could go to Cape Cod. He worked on the 100^th floor of the South Tower. By chance, he had escaped the death that claimed 176 of his co-workers.

That was my introduction to the attacks. Sixteen years have disappeared behind us, yet it seems like yesterday. And yet again, it seems like long, long ago.

Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn’t believable; the official story was full of holes. It was a reaction that I couldn’t fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth. I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin (see How Bush And Cheney Ruined America And The World) and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition. I set about creating a college course on what had come to be called 9/11.

But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers. Let me explain why.

By 2004 I was convinced that the U.S. government’s claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report) were fictitious. They seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were a deep-state intelligence operation whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as “the war on terror.” The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered evidence for the government’s claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved.

Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people’s insouciant lack of interest in researching arguably the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy. I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well. For so many people their minds seemed to have been “made up” from the start. I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative. This included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy. Now that sixteen years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever.

So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance deHaven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, et al., I have concluded that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks. As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries. It had to seem “natural” and to flow out of events, not to precede them. And it had to be repeated over and over again.

In summary form, I will list the language I believe “made up the minds” of those who have refused to examine the government’s claims about the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.

1. Pearl Harbor.  As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century’s report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (p.51). Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. “absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” Coincidentally or not, the film Pearl Harbor, made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit. It was in the theatres throughout the summer. The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the air despite the fact that the 60^th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. Once the September 11 attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor comparison was “plucked out” of the social atmosphere and used innumerable times, beginning immediately. Even George W. Bush was widely reported to have had the time that night to allegedly use it in his diary. The examples of this comparison are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them. Any casual researcher can confirm this.

2. Homeland. This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used many times by the neo-con authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before. Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside. Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order.

3. Ground Zero. This is a third WWII (“the good war”) term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka “the Harley Guy” because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical and anti-scientific explanation later given by the government: “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense.” Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn’t act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point. But the conjoining of “nuclear” with “ground zero” served to raise the fear factor dramatically. Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center.

4. The Unthinkable. This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of the very important The 2001 Anthrax Deception. He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying “the pattern may not signify a grand plan …. It deserves investigation and contemplation.” He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn’t be accidental. He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, “gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty”; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to “rethink the unthinkable.” This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with “weapons of mass destruction.” PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty. A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months notice and because of “extraordinary events” that “jeopardized its supreme interests.” Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term “unthinkable” in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks. He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – “The Unthinkabel” [sic]. He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter’s content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word. He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government’s complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in the Sept 11 attacks. While calling the use of the term “unthinkable” in all its iterations “problematic,” he writes, “The truth is that the employment of ‘the unthinkable’ in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities.” I am reminded of Orwell’s point in 1984: “a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words.”  Thus the government and media’s use of “unthinkable” becomes a classic case of “doublethink.” The unthinkable is unthinkable.

5. 9/11. This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number. Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history. The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced this connection the following morning in a NY Times op-ed piece, “America’s Emergency Line: 911.” The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists. His first sentence reads: “An Israeli response to America’s aptly dated wake-up call might well be, ‘Now you know.’” By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust. It is a term that pushes all the right buttons evoking unending social fear and anxiety. It is language as sorcery; it is propaganda at its best. Even well-respected critics of the U.S. government’s explanation use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition. As George W. Bush would later put it as he connected Saddam Hussein to “9/11” and pushed for the Iraq war, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.

I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively at this time because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge.   It is why I don’t speak of “9/11” any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001, which is a mouth-full and not easily digested in the age of Twitter and texting. But I am not sure how to be more succinct or how to undo the damage.

Lance deHaven-Smith puts it well in Conspiracy Theory in America. 

The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of “9/11” and “9-1-1” – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11….It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.

Needless to say, his use of the words “possibility” and “may” are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism. However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these “coincidences” part of a conspiracy. I have also reached that conclusion. As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way,

“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” 

The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course. It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked. The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers  from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, architects, and scholars from many disciplines. To paraphrase the prescient Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are “a false mystery concealing state crimes.” If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the “mystery” emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes utterable. “There is no mystery.” How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government’s mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird), repeating and repeating  and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with, but there are signs today that breakthroughs are occurring.

Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize. Linguistic mind-control, especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind. It often makes some subjects “unthinkable” and “unspeakable” (to quote Jim Douglass quoting Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable: the unspeakable “is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said.”).

We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things.

Educated in the classics, philosophy, literature, theology, and sociology, Ed Curtin teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He states: “I write as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. I believe a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore see all my work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding.”   His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

All images in this article are from the author. 

Hezbollah declared a victory in Syria as the Russian Defense Ministry announced that pro-government forces have liberated 85% of the country from militants.

“We have won in the war [in Syria],” Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Tuesday, according to the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar. He added that “the path of the other project has failed and wants to negotiate for some gains.”

The Russian military group’s Chief of Staff, Lieutenant-General Aleksandr Lapin announced “To date, 85% of Syria’s territory has been cleared of the militants of illegal armed groups.” The general added that ISIS is still in control of about 27,000 km2 of Syria’s territory.

According to Lieutenant-General Lapin, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have killed over 450 ISIS members, destroyed 5 battle tanks, and 42 vehicles equipped with large-caliber machine guns during the operation near Deir Ezzor city as well as unblocked 1,000 troops that had been surrounded in Deir Ezzor Airport.

He added that the Russian Aerospace Forces destroyed 180 facilities, including ammunition depots and command centers, in the Uqayribat area in eastern Hama.

On the same day, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited Damascus and held a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, “The sides discussed current issues of military technical cooperation in the context of successful actions of Syrian government forces with the backing of the Russian aerospace force to exterminate the terrorist group Islamic State [ISIS] in Syria.“

The visit came amid the continued battle against ISIS in Deir Ezzor province. The US-led coalition and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are seeking to establish control over the oil-rich countryside of Deir Ezzor city and if it’s possible to prevent further SAA advances towards the border with Iraq.

The Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance is now developing a strategy to find a better way to liberate Deir Ezzor city amid the need to take control of the Deir Ezzor-Baghdad highway that will be a vital supply line between Syria and allied Iraq and Iran.

Meanwhile, the SAA Tiger Forces and their allies started storming ISIS positions inside Deir Ezzor city and preparing for a possible operation to cross the Euphrates River.

The SDF has further advanced in the northern countryside of Deir Ezzor and seized the Sadkop center, the paper mill plant and the cotton storage near the 113th Air Defense Base.

A representative of the SDF-linked Deir Ezzor Military Council has also claimed that the SDF is going to strike back the “regime forces” if the SAA or its allies try to attack the SDF.

In the city of Raqqah, the SDF has captured Thakanah district and advanced on ISIS positions north of it. The SDF advance is ongoing amid an intense bombing campaign by the US-led coalition.

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Rarely does the virus speak so formidably to the condition he is a product of. The soiling, devastating strategist Steve Bannon, despite exiting the Trump administration, remains within it (symbolically at least), moving about with effect and influence. But it is a legacy of mixed curses that bodes ill for the Republican Party.

The one call he repeats with truncheon carrying persistence is one of division. This is not a man who believes, let alone tolerates, unified fronts. Disunity is his bread, butter and caviar. Where a front of consensus appears, his shock methods seek to disrupt it. And nothing, for Bannon, would be more reflective of failure than a united GOP, lips moving in synchronous agreement, all on that one vast page of political thought. Unless, of course, they agreed with him.

His performance on the 60 Minutes show was nothing short than pure in its protest.[1] In his discussion with Charlie Rose, the familiar terms were deployed with weaponized zeal. Targets were identified, elites excoriated. There were those troublesome individuals, the “swamp”, the establishment. All were given a generous verbal lashing.

The personal targets were predictable enough: old stalwarts such as Speaker Paul Ryan and the human personification of the detested swamp, that veteran insider Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell. They supply the stifling set, keen to submit Trumpism, or Trumpism envisaged by Bannon, to gradual strangulation.

“They do not want Donald Trump’s populist, economic nationalist agenda to be implemented.”

The theme of frustrated revolution proves constant in the interview, and here, the revolutionary was speaking as a combatant in exile, gazing over a world that refused to change.

“In the 48 hours after we won, there’s a fundamental decision that was made… We embraced the establishment.”

Everything else followed: the stuttering, the plodding, the meandering of the Republicans.

“I think their choice,” he predicts of the GOP functionaries in response to such instruments as the Affordable Care Act, “is going to be you’re not going to be able to totally repeal it.”

As, indeed, it is proving to be.

For Bannon, purity, despite being in a country of the energetic melting pot, is a genuine concept, the very product of a form of archaic Americanism. Amnesty for the undocumented, he blustered, was non-negotiable. “Economic nationalism” was indispensable to the American character. But the impure are in the ranks, laying out the pillboxes and road blocks.

“The Republican establishment,” he shot at Rose with conspiratorial suggestiveness, “is trying to nullify the 2016 election.”

Of course, nothing would be Bannon without the crystal ball, the gloomy prediction with its rich wafting of apocalypse. The GOP, he surmises, will duly be divided, and will suffer come the 2018 elections. He expressed particular worry about how the Republicans will fall on their sword regarding the matter of immigration and undocumented labour, the great poisoned chalice of US politics.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced by President Barack Obama in 2012, is a point of considerable demurral. President Donald Trump promised on September 5 to repeal the measure, which allows applicants who arrived in the US before the age of 16, subject to various conditions (continuous residence, study, lack of a criminal record), the chance to receive work permits. There was one softening concession: a six month grace period before the program joints the ranks of history.

For Bannon, any approach to such programs should be unequivocal and swift, necessarily brutal and decisive. Opponents, such as the Catholic Church, were merely keen to fill the pews with the faithful. (The church, as an economic liberal entity, is a curious Bannonism indeed.)

DACA, however, risks being the bomb that goes off within GOP ranks, with its ticking device set. Leaving it linger will have lethal results:

“if this goes all the way down to its logical conclusion, in February and March, it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party.”

When the ashes settled, the interview concluded, the fumes could still be seen. Bannonism remains furious and unbowed, and most of all, angrily unrepentant. But his one persistent illusion remains: Trump is not a Bannonist, an ideologue, a person who will sport his own variant of Mao’s Little Red Book to wave with dedication. (The Art of the Deal hardly counts.)

The current US president remains an opportunistic misfit, never one to play by the code of any specific philosophy, any credo that is not a self-interested one. It is for that very reason that Bannon had to go, to assume the visage of the indignant, philosophical monk, where he will continue to rail and pontificate about race, the undrained swamp of Washington, economic irrationalism and “the pearl-clutching mainstream media.”

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Note

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/bannon-60-minutes/index.html

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced an official Israeli support to creation of an independent Kurdish state in the Middle East.

On Tuesday, the Israeli prime minister’s office released a statement claiming that Israel “supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to attain a state of its own“.

The statement came ahead an independence referendum of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region scheduled for September 25. Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu became the first head of state to support the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Netanyahu added that he was not referring to the efforts of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to establish an independent Kurdish state in Turkey.

“Israel rejects the PKK and considers it a terrorist organization, as opposed to Turkey, which supports the terror organization Hamas,” he said.

However, it does not look like this will be enough to keep a nice relations with Ankara that strongly opposes to creation of any Kurdish state near or even inside its borders.

On August 31st, the French government finally published decrees which alter labour law, for the second time in little over a year. Less rights for workers, more power for employers: that is, in a nutshell, the contents of this new law.

This further social retrenchment goes much further than the previous reform (so-called “El-Khomri Law”), although the El-Khomri Law was explicitly condemned by the United Nations as contrary to France’s international Commitments[1] and against which a complaint has been lodged with the International Labour Organization.[2]

Under the pretext of efficiency – but more so in order to reduce to nil any in-depth discussion and restrict protests – this pro-employer reform has been adopted through a fast-track process, i.e. with Parliament reduced to mere rubberstamping and unions granted a grand total of six hours each for consultation!

Below are the main bones of contention for the CGT:

1. Easier lay-offs

Although the current system already gave employers many options to choose from to terminate contracts and whilst job casualization is a plague for millions of people without any benefits to the economy, this new reform provides for:

• Drastic reduction of severance pay for unfair dismissal. In cases of questioning dismissals with the relevant jurisdictions, the decrees provide for capped compensation. This means that employers will know in advance how much it will cost them, when they violate the law through unfair dismissals! The bigger the firms and the greater their financial means, the easier it will be to include provisions in their budgets, so as to be able to organize dismissals without any real or serious grounds.
• The El-Khomri Law already provided for dismissals in cases of a drop in turnover or cash flows, even if only by a few Euros. But that was not enough. In order to remove all “obstacles to recruitment,” Emmanuel Macron is generalising the principle of “throwaway workers.”
• Easier economic redundancies. Whereas until now, multinational firms facing difficulties in France but making a profit elsewhere could not go ahead with economic redundancies, as per the decrees, their international financial standing will no longer be taken into consideration in such cases.

2. Devalued trade union activities

• Depreciation of the role of unions in firm-level bargaining. It will now be possible for bargaining to take place in small firms through referendum, without staff or union representatives. In other firms, the rules differ according to size, but globally, the result remains the same: any firm management can convene a referendum unilaterally. Such a referendum is therefore a major tool against workers, to impose an agreement that would be rejected by majority unions.
• Merger of the current three workers’ representative bodies into a single entity, “the Social and Economic Committee.” This reorganization will mean more remote representatives, as they will have to deal with affairs at higher levels, thus spending less time spent with workers facing difficulties at the workplace.The government is quite obviously trying to restrain any opposition, thus curtailing social democracy in our country.

3. Generalized casualization

• The decree will mean more casual contracts: “assignment contracts” are to be generalized. Whereas until now, such short-term contracts were reserved for some specific branches, they will now be introduced to all sectors, the idea being that such contracts terminate at the end of specific missions.
• The development of fixed-term contracts: from now on, it will be possible to increase their duration or renew them at will. We are therefore moving toward the end of permanent contracts in France.

4. Hierarchy of standards

• The El-Khomri Law turned upside the standards that regulate labour law. The new reform is a follow-up to, and an amplification of, that previous law. Thus, in most areas (bonuses, allowances, maternity leave…), company agreements will take precedence over branch agreement, even if they are less favourable to workers. For instance, a company agreement may provide for less bonuses or longer working time.If workers refuse changes to their contract of employment, they will automatically be laid-off on “compelling grounds.” Employers might be tempted to use this kind of blackmail to avoid any opposition.Ultimately, the purpose is for employers to be able to negotiate the retrenchments that suit them best. In France, over 50% of workers are employed in small or very small firms – with weak union representation – but they come under branch collective agreements. With the reform, workers will be faced with possible company agreements that are below branch agreements.

This will increase social dumping among French firms.

These decrees marginalize workers’ counter-powers and jeopardise the values and foundations of our social system.

For all the reasons mentioned above, the CGT has called for a day of united action on 12 September. We will remain mobilized, and defend our social rights!

We call upon our trade union friends worldwide to support us on this day of action.

Notes

1. Final remarks from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, dated June 2016, on the legal basis of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).

2. For violation of Conventions 87 (Freedom of Association), 98 (Collective Bargaining) and 158 (Termination of Employment).

Featured image is from the author.

On August 30, 2017, the Reserve Bank of India released its Annual Report for 2016-17 which revealed that 98.8 percent of scrapped currency notes has come back into the Indian banking system. This mind-blowing statistics has put a serious question mark over the efficacy of demonetization move because it was anticipated by the government that a large portion of scrapped currency notes might not come back into the banking system.

On November 8, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetization move under which high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 – referred to as Specified Bank Notes – ceased to be legal tender with effect from November 9, 2016. In his address to nation, PM Modi said

“From midnight November 8, 2016 today, Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes are no longer legal tender.”

People were asked to deposit scrapped currency notes in their bank accounts by 30th December and were allowed to exchange them with notes of other denominations subject to certain limits and conditions.

The central government and the RBI outlined three key objectives of demonetization: to curb black money and corruption by preventing hoarding of cash; to prevent counterfeiting of currency notes; and to fight against terrorism by cutting off cash funding of terrorist groups operating in India.

Due to the withdrawal of legal tender character of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, about 15.44 trillion rupees worth of the currency notes (about 86 percent of the total currency) were removed from circulation. In ‘Currency Management’ chapter of annual report, the RBI noted: “Subject to future corrections based on verification process when completed, the estimated value of SBNs received as on June 30, 2017, is 15.28 trillion.” In simple words, 98.8 percent of banned currency notes returned into the banking system after the demonetization. Hence, the expectation that the demonetization would force people to destroy their illegitimate cash in order to escape scrutiny from tax authorities simply did not materialize.

Why Delay?

These statistics have been eagerly awaited as the exact figure of the returned currency notes would reveal the effectiveness of demonetization move. It is beyond comprehension why the RBI took so long to reveal the official data. In the initial weeks of demonetization drive, the RBI was releasing the data pertaining to return of banned currency notes but this practice was stopped midway without any explanation.

Till July 2017, the RBI had maintained that it could not tell the exact amount of banned notes received by it as the counting process is not yet over. Until the RBI released its annual report on August 30, the official numbers were not publicly revealed even though many critics had estimated that the return of banned currency notes would be higher than 95 percent.

Gaming the System

The overarching objective behind the demonetization move was to flush out black money or illegally-acquired cash from the financial system. The RBI data lends credence to widely held claims that people hoarding black money gamed the system by converting their illegal currency into legal tender through various means including parking banned currency notes in the bank accounts of poor and low-income individuals. Millions of bank accounts were opened during a massive financial inclusion scheme – Jan Dhan Yojana – in 2014. Post-demonetization, a surge in deposits in Jan Dhan Yojana bank accounts was witnessed in both urban and rural areas. Of course, this is not the entire story as other creative methods were used by black money hoarders to convert and use banned currency notes.

In addition, significant amounts of black money in the form of new currency notes was sized across the country during the demonetization period thereby questioning the logic of whole exercise as an effective and credible deterrence to black money. In sum, the very objective of demonetization to eliminate black money from the economy stands defeated.

Changing Goalposts

When it appeared to the government that bulk of illegal currency might return to the banking system, it began shifting the goalposts by adding new objectives of demonetization move. Hence, policy objectives such as promoting digital transactions and taking country towards a “cashless” economy (subsequently modified to a “less-cash” economy) were added later. The goal to make India a cashless economy seems more as an afterthought plan. These objectives, despite desirable, were not listed in the earlier official notifications.

Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut

How far the demonetization policy has been able to achieve other stated objectives? Let’s begin with fake Indian currency notes (FICNs) which the currency demonetization exercise was expected to curb its circulation and thereby reining the activities of anti-social elements.

In order to justify the demonetization move, Niti Aayog member Bibek Debroy claimed that fake notes worth Rs 20,000 million are in circulation. In reality, the government has not detected a large volume of fake currency notes in circulation within the country despite eight months have passed after demonetization. The RBI’s annual report also noted that the face value of fake Indian currency notes (FICNs) of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 denomination was merely Rs 410 million during 2016-17. If the total face value of FICNs is so meagre, why massive disruption in economic activity was caused by demonetization? Wouldn’t it have been better to curb the circulation of counterfeit currency through printing of new currency notes containing high security features that are difficult to replicate?

As far as the impact on terror funding is concerned, there is very little evidence to suggest that the demonetization has curtailed it significantly.

The Dream of a Cashless Economy

Another much-touted objective of demonetization was to promote the use of digital transactions and move towards a “cashless” economy. There is no denying that the number of digital transactions (via Paytm, MobiKwik and other electronic payment methods) grew rapidly in November and December 2016 in the aftermath of demonetization but such transactions have started showing a declining trend since March 2017 when cash money supply became normal.

It is worth noting here that much of the increase in digital transactions took place in urban areas where people have easy access to PoS machines, internet banking and mobile wallets. Whereas in the rural areas where people still rely on cash, digital and other kinds of cashless transactions will take years to penetrate because of lack of electricity, internet and other infrastructure. Hence, a shift in payment patterns may happen gradually throughout the country.

Rather than banking on demonetization which is essentially a one-off event, the government should develop a long-term perspective on how to create favorable ground conditions for promoting digital transactions and moving towards a less-cash economy over the long run. Nothing is stopping the central government to take steps in this direction.

Furthermore, it would be erroneous to treat all cash transactions as part of illegal money as millions of poor households and small businesses daily use cash for legitimate transactions.

New Offshoots?

Despite growing economic concerns, the government has vigorously defended the demonetization move on the grounds that the benefits will accrue over the medium and long term.

The government claims that one of the major offshoots of the demonetization drive would be significant rise in direct tax collections. It expects that the number of income tax payers would increase substantially as demonetization has brought many people under the tax net. The government is of the view that the widening of tax base would improve India’s tax-to-GDP ratio which remains very low as compared to other emerging economies.

Two points are important to note. The first point is that it is too early to make any assessment of the impact of demonetization on India’s direct tax base. The direct tax data available till now does not suggest a dramatic improvement in the tax base post-demonetization. Perhaps one needs to wait till 2018 to know whether demonetization led to widening of tax base and tax collections.

The second point is that the increase in income tax collections during 2016-17 should be largely attributed to Income Declaration Scheme (2016) which came into effect from June 1, 2016. The Scheme gave an opportunity to people who have not paid full taxes in the past to declare the undisclosed income and pay taxes. The government expects to collect Rs 300,000 million in tax revenue under this one-off scheme.

The Finance Ministry also claims to investigate a vast number of suspicious cash deposit transactions reported by the banking system. Using the advance data analytics tools, the income tax department has identified 556000 individuals whose tax profiles are found inconsistent with the money deposited by them during the demonetization period. Given the limited manpower with the income tax department, investigating such a large number of new cases is not going to be an easy task.

Furthermore, the manner in which Indian tax authorities have handled the recent cases of tax evasion inspire little confidence. Take the case of leaked Panama Papers which were released last year. The Indian tax authorities have yet to net a “big fish” listed in Panama Papers. There are more than 500 Indians named in the Panama Papers but the tax authorities have made little progress on that front.

A larger point is that some of the purported long-term gains such as investigation of suspicious transactions and widening of tax base could be well pursued without demonetization which disrupted the economy activity and caused severe hardship to common man. The income tax and other authorities have all the necessary policy instruments at their disposal to use them in the pursuit of these objectives.

At What Cost?

Some of the economic and social costs of the demonetization decision are summarized below:

• India’s GDP growth slipped to a three-year low of 5.7% in the first quarter (April-June) of fiscal 2017-18. The disruption caused by demonetization played a role in the slowdown along with other factors such as GST (goods and services tax) destocking.
• Demonetization had a debilitating impact on India’s vast informal sector, which employs more than 90 percent of country’s workforce. The cash crunch badly affected the daily wage labourers, street vendors and informal sector workers who rely solely on cash for income and expenditure. There are several reports highlighting the massive job losses in the labour-intensive sectors in the aftermath of demonetization.
• Consumer confidence fell sharply during demonetization. The much anticipated pickup in discretionary consumer spending has not been observed despite remonetization.
• Credit growth witnessed a historic low of 5.1 percent during the second half of 2016-17. In particular, bank loans to rural areas were badly affected as the growth in rural loans plummeted to 2.5 percent.
• As part of remonetization of currency notes, the RBI had to incur massive expenditure on the printing of new currency notes. The costs of printing new notes were Rs 79,650 million, about 133% higher than the previous year. It also contributed to the decline in the RBI’s surplus payable to the central government from Rs 658,760 million in 2015-16 to Rs 306,590 million in 2016-17.
• The poor execution of demonetization move resulted in long queues outside bank branches as people waited for hours to deposit and exchange the demonetized notes.

To conclude, the government needs to explain why it pursued a shock and awe strategy through demonetization when it already has a wide variety of policy instruments to achieve same objectives?

Kavaljit Singh works with Madhyam (www.madhyam.org.in), New Delhi.

On August 30, 2017, the Reserve Bank of India released its Annual Report for 2016-17 which revealed that 98.8 percent of scrapped currency notes has come back into the Indian banking system. This mind-blowing statistics has put a serious question mark over the efficacy of demonetization move because it was anticipated by the government that a large portion of scrapped currency notes might not come back into the banking system.

On November 8, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetization move under which high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 – referred to as Specified Bank Notes – ceased to be legal tender with effect from November 9, 2016. In his address to nation, PM Modi said

“From midnight November 8, 2016 today, Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes are no longer legal tender.”

People were asked to deposit scrapped currency notes in their bank accounts by 30th December and were allowed to exchange them with notes of other denominations subject to certain limits and conditions.

The central government and the RBI outlined three key objectives of demonetization: to curb black money and corruption by preventing hoarding of cash; to prevent counterfeiting of currency notes; and to fight against terrorism by cutting off cash funding of terrorist groups operating in India.

Due to the withdrawal of legal tender character of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, about 15.44 trillion rupees worth of the currency notes (about 86 percent of the total currency) were removed from circulation. In ‘Currency Management’ chapter of annual report, the RBI noted: “Subject to future corrections based on verification process when completed, the estimated value of SBNs received as on June 30, 2017, is 15.28 trillion.” In simple words, 98.8 percent of banned currency notes returned into the banking system after the demonetization. Hence, the expectation that the demonetization would force people to destroy their illegitimate cash in order to escape scrutiny from tax authorities simply did not materialize.

Why Delay?

These statistics have been eagerly awaited as the exact figure of the returned currency notes would reveal the effectiveness of demonetization move. It is beyond comprehension why the RBI took so long to reveal the official data. In the initial weeks of demonetization drive, the RBI was releasing the data pertaining to return of banned currency notes but this practice was stopped midway without any explanation.

Till July 2017, the RBI had maintained that it could not tell the exact amount of banned notes received by it as the counting process is not yet over. Until the RBI released its annual report on August 30, the official numbers were not publicly revealed even though many critics had estimated that the return of banned currency notes would be higher than 95 percent.

Gaming the System

The overarching objective behind the demonetization move was to flush out black money or illegally-acquired cash from the financial system. The RBI data lends credence to widely held claims that people hoarding black money gamed the system by converting their illegal currency into legal tender through various means including parking banned currency notes in the bank accounts of poor and low-income individuals. Millions of bank accounts were opened during a massive financial inclusion scheme – Jan Dhan Yojana – in 2014. Post-demonetization, a surge in deposits in Jan Dhan Yojana bank accounts was witnessed in both urban and rural areas. Of course, this is not the entire story as other creative methods were used by black money hoarders to convert and use banned currency notes.

In addition, significant amounts of black money in the form of new currency notes was sized across the country during the demonetization period thereby questioning the logic of whole exercise as an effective and credible deterrence to black money. In sum, the very objective of demonetization to eliminate black money from the economy stands defeated.

Changing Goalposts

When it appeared to the government that bulk of illegal currency might return to the banking system, it began shifting the goalposts by adding new objectives of demonetization move. Hence, policy objectives such as promoting digital transactions and taking country towards a “cashless” economy (subsequently modified to a “less-cash” economy) were added later. The goal to make India a cashless economy seems more as an afterthought plan. These objectives, despite desirable, were not listed in the earlier official notifications.

Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut

How far the demonetization policy has been able to achieve other stated objectives? Let’s begin with fake Indian currency notes (FICNs) which the currency demonetization exercise was expected to curb its circulation and thereby reining the activities of anti-social elements.

In order to justify the demonetization move, Niti Aayog member Bibek Debroy claimed that fake notes worth Rs 20,000 million are in circulation. In reality, the government has not detected a large volume of fake currency notes in circulation within the country despite eight months have passed after demonetization. The RBI’s annual report also noted that the face value of fake Indian currency notes (FICNs) of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 denomination was merely Rs 410 million during 2016-17. If the total face value of FICNs is so meagre, why massive disruption in economic activity was caused by demonetization? Wouldn’t it have been better to curb the circulation of counterfeit currency through printing of new currency notes containing high security features that are difficult to replicate?

As far as the impact on terror funding is concerned, there is very little evidence to suggest that the demonetization has curtailed it significantly.

The Dream of a Cashless Economy

Another much-touted objective of demonetization was to promote the use of digital transactions and move towards a “cashless” economy. There is no denying that the number of digital transactions (via Paytm, MobiKwik and other electronic payment methods) grew rapidly in November and December 2016 in the aftermath of demonetization but such transactions have started showing a declining trend since March 2017 when cash money supply became normal.

It is worth noting here that much of the increase in digital transactions took place in urban areas where people have easy access to PoS machines, internet banking and mobile wallets. Whereas in the rural areas where people still rely on cash, digital and other kinds of cashless transactions will take years to penetrate because of lack of electricity, internet and other infrastructure. Hence, a shift in payment patterns may happen gradually throughout the country.

Rather than banking on demonetization which is essentially a one-off event, the government should develop a long-term perspective on how to create favorable ground conditions for promoting digital transactions and moving towards a less-cash economy over the long run. Nothing is stopping the central government to take steps in this direction.

Furthermore, it would be erroneous to treat all cash transactions as part of illegal money as millions of poor households and small businesses daily use cash for legitimate transactions.

New Offshoots?

Despite growing economic concerns, the government has vigorously defended the demonetization move on the grounds that the benefits will accrue over the medium and long term.

The government claims that one of the major offshoots of the demonetization drive would be significant rise in direct tax collections. It expects that the number of income tax payers would increase substantially as demonetization has brought many people under the tax net. The government is of the view that the widening of tax base would improve India’s tax-to-GDP ratio which remains very low as compared to other emerging economies.

Two points are important to note. The first point is that it is too early to make any assessment of the impact of demonetization on India’s direct tax base. The direct tax data available till now does not suggest a dramatic improvement in the tax base post-demonetization. Perhaps one needs to wait till 2018 to know whether demonetization led to widening of tax base and tax collections.

The second point is that the increase in income tax collections during 2016-17 should be largely attributed to Income Declaration Scheme (2016) which came into effect from June 1, 2016. The Scheme gave an opportunity to people who have not paid full taxes in the past to declare the undisclosed income and pay taxes. The government expects to collect Rs 300,000 million in tax revenue under this one-off scheme.

The Finance Ministry also claims to investigate a vast number of suspicious cash deposit transactions reported by the banking system. Using the advance data analytics tools, the income tax department has identified 556000 individuals whose tax profiles are found inconsistent with the money deposited by them during the demonetization period. Given the limited manpower with the income tax department, investigating such a large number of new cases is not going to be an easy task.

Furthermore, the manner in which Indian tax authorities have handled the recent cases of tax evasion inspire little confidence. Take the case of leaked Panama Papers which were released last year. The Indian tax authorities have yet to net a “big fish” listed in Panama Papers. There are more than 500 Indians named in the Panama Papers but the tax authorities have made little progress on that front.

A larger point is that some of the purported long-term gains such as investigation of suspicious transactions and widening of tax base could be well pursued without demonetization which disrupted the economy activity and caused severe hardship to common man. The income tax and other authorities have all the necessary policy instruments at their disposal to use them in the pursuit of these objectives.

At What Cost?

Some of the economic and social costs of the demonetization decision are summarized below:

• India’s GDP growth slipped to a three-year low of 5.7% in the first quarter (April-June) of fiscal 2017-18. The disruption caused by demonetization played a role in the slowdown along with other factors such as GST (goods and services tax) destocking.
• Demonetization had a debilitating impact on India’s vast informal sector, which employs more than 90 percent of country’s workforce. The cash crunch badly affected the daily wage labourers, street vendors and informal sector workers who rely solely on cash for income and expenditure. There are several reports highlighting the massive job losses in the labour-intensive sectors in the aftermath of demonetization.
• Consumer confidence fell sharply during demonetization. The much anticipated pickup in discretionary consumer spending has not been observed despite remonetization.
• Credit growth witnessed a historic low of 5.1 percent during the second half of 2016-17. In particular, bank loans to rural areas were badly affected as the growth in rural loans plummeted to 2.5 percent.
• As part of remonetization of currency notes, the RBI had to incur massive expenditure on the printing of new currency notes. The costs of printing new notes were Rs 79,650 million, about 133% higher than the previous year. It also contributed to the decline in the RBI’s surplus payable to the central government from Rs 658,760 million in 2015-16 to Rs 306,590 million in 2016-17.
• The poor execution of demonetization move resulted in long queues outside bank branches as people waited for hours to deposit and exchange the demonetized notes.

To conclude, the government needs to explain why it pursued a shock and awe strategy through demonetization when it already has a wide variety of policy instruments to achieve same objectives?

Kavaljit Singh works with Madhyam (www.madhyam.org.in), New Delhi.

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

Global BDS activism is vital – the most effective initiative challenging Israeli ruthlessness, essential to preserve and support.

Congressional Israel Anti-Boycott Act legislation wants it criminalized. It aims to “amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.”

Its key provisions include:

• Congressional opposition to BDS.
• Calling UNHCR criticism of Israel support for BDS, notably its March 2016 blacklist of companies operating in Occupied Palestine on stolen land.
• Expanding the Export Administration Act (EAA), prohibiting involvement with any foreign government’s boycott of Israel.
• Prohibiting Americans from responding to boycott requests from international governmental organizations, including the UN and EU.
• Requiring the Export-Import Bank to consider an applicant’s BDS-related activities when considering granting assistance.
• Assuring nothing legislatively alters established US policy on final status issues, including borders, Jerusalem, and other issues left to Israel and Palestinians to resolve on their own – assuring continued occupation harshness and denial of fundamental Palestinian rights.
• Prohibiting commercial activities intended to harm Israel.
• Expanding and coordinating cooperation by America with Israel to counter BDS.
• Criminalizing BDS activism flagrantly violates First Amendment rights. Human rights groups strongly oppose proposed Israel Anti-Boycott legislation.

The ACLU blasted it for “punish(ing) individuals for no reason other than their political beliefs.” Requesting BDS information would be illegal.

Penalties would include stiff fines up to $1 million dollars and/or imprisonment as long as 20 years.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, First Amendment rights to express views freely fundamental. Without them, all others are endangered.

Israel is a Ziofascist, racist police state. Opposing its ruthlessness is an obligation along with a right. Criminalizing free expression is the hallmark of dictatorships.

In Abrams v. United States (1919), Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes called disagreement with free speech never a reason to condemn it. Their views strongly influenced nearly all subsequent High Court First Amendment rulings.

If Israel Anti-Boycott legislation is enacted, federal courts should strike it down, affirming its unconstitutionality.

Scores of human rights groups oppose it, including the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Council for American Islamic Relations, Peace Now, and Jewish Voices for Peace, among many others.

In a joint statement to Congress, they expressed strong “oppos(ition) (to) this unconstitutional, draconian bill and to affirm the First Amendment right of all people in the United States to support political boycotts as a means to achieve justice and equality for Palestinians.”

“(I)ts passage would still send a message that political boycotts for Palestinian rights are disfavored by the government, causing a severe chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.”

“The US Supreme Court has ruled that peaceful political boycotts are protected by the First Amendment. The government may not enact laws that would punish those who support political boycotts or compromise the right to support political boycotts.”

Enactment “will have the effect of chilling First Amendment-protected political speech.”

“(W)e call on all members of Congress to publicly oppose the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and to affirm the First Amendment right to support political boycotts – including those aimed at achieving justice and equality for Palestinians.”

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image: Palestinian youths force open a gate in the Israeli separation wall, built on land belonging to the village of Bil’in, which leads to the Israeli settlement of Modi’in Ilit, also built on village land, February 17, 2017. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Most veteran observers, including Israeli security authorities and Palestinian leadership, were dumbfounded by recent events in Jerusalem, where tens of thousands of Palestinians mobilized non-violently in response to the Israeli closure of the Old City and placement of metal detectors at the entrance of the Dome of Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. What was the secret ingredient that made such a mass action take place and be a successful example in Palestinian non-violent resistance to the 50 years of Israeli military occupation? How did it happen so spontaneously, non-violently and with seemingly no leadership?

A new report by the group, titled, Relations Between Palestinians Across the Green Line (Arabic here, English translation forthcoming), in the works for over two years, may hold the answer to some of these questions. For months, a group of dedicated Palestinian analysts, activists, intellectuals and politicians working with the Palestine Strategy Group (PSG) have been meeting to explore an angle of the Palestinians reality that is many times ignored—the relationship between the Palestinians living inside Israel, today coined as Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Transcending artificial boundaries

The report identifies Jerusalem as a place where, paradoxically, the boundaries of Israel and Palestine collapse — a site for joint work, cooperation and struggle against Israel’s colonial policies. Many political leaders (Palestinian members of Knesset, as well as Jerusalemites, Fatah members, Hamas-affiliated academics, etc.) who were part of the group that produced the report testified to the existing, nascent cooperation and possibility and need to further develop it.

Even beyond the recent developments in Jerusalem, there are also indications of grassroots and bottom-up engagements transcending conventional and formal realms of political engagement elsewhere. The cross-border mobilization and cooperation to address the Prawer Plan, for instance, a 2011 Israeli government plan to forcibly relocate some 40,000 Bedouin citizens living in dozens of villages in Israel’s Negev desert, was identified as additional proof to this growing phenomenon of Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line finding common ground.

The PSG report starts with stating an obvious, but no less bold, fact that

“Fifty years after the Israeli occupation and forced annexation of Palestinians under Israel’s discriminatory ruling regime, political projects associated with ending the occupation and attaining full citizenship have ended in stalemate.”

That statement is not groundbreaking in and of itself. When coupled with the following realization, however, it provides more than just food for thought — it also sheds light on this rather invisible phenomenon which has the potential to rejuvenate the entire Palestinian national liberation movement. The report continues:

“In light of different political projects, national cohesion among the Palestinian people on both sides of the Green Line is a key tool to create a unified, collective umbrella that allows networking, empowerment and development. While it does not abolish political specificities, this umbrella will seek to integrate political projects. Every component of these projects will support the other with a view to realizing respective demands, including ending the occupation of the 1967 territory, return of the refugees, full citizenship, and individual and collective equality inside the Green Line.”

A new Palestinian agency?

The strategy presented is premised on two hypotheses. First, is the need to maintain a clear distinction between the national and the political realms. That means an inclusive Palestinian national project that brings together all Palestinian people — those under occupation in the (New) State of Palestine, those in Israel, and those refugees and diaspora abroad. Secondly, discrepant political interests and perceptions of Palestinian groups need to be viewed as complementary, rather than contradictory to one another. Doing so means embracing diversity, transforming it from a source of divisions into a foundation for rebuilding a national project.

It is important to emphasize that support, networking and joint action of Palestinians across the Green Line have always been in place. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian party leaders inside Israel have acted in concert and coordinated with and supported each other on innumerable occasions. However, coordination always took place beyond any institutional frameworks. Oftentimes, the report notes, “collaboration was arbitrary, individual [and not] bona fide.” Today, this cross-border cooperation is not only targeted, collective and authentic, but has within it the seeds of a new type of Palestinian leadership.

In this context, namely the lack of institutional networking, PSG discussants proposed several potential options to institutionalize relations between Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line. A major thrust of the report entertains the “creating an inclusive, apolitical framework for all Palestinians.”

Palestinians are 12 million in number, and stuck in institutional paralysis. The nearly 25-year-old Oslo Peace Process successfully, and sadly, facilitated Israel’s strategic desire to utilize the age-old divide and conquer strategy to reduce Palestinians to disparate fragments, each with their own challenge to merely survive. It’s time to reset that reality and view the Palestinians for what they are, physically fragmented, politically divided, but a whole people nonetheless, from Ramallah to Santiago.

Sam Bahour is a Secretariat member of the Palestine Strategy Group and policy adviser to Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network. He blogs at www.epalestine.com. @SamBahour. The PSG report was implemented in cooperation with the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR) and the Oxford Research Group (ORG). It was supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Representative Office of Norway to the Palestinian Authority (2015-2017) and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (2016-2017).  This latest report is the most recent of a series of important and influential documents the PSG has issued since its founding in 2008.

It has all the ingredients of screwball stand up comedy, the necessary corrective to end-of-the-world scenarios. “And there she was, Irma, blowing herself through the room… And I shot her.” But humour is in scant supply for authorities who have been paying attention to the relentless movements of Hurricane Irma. Irma, who sounds like a gentle, tea sipping teetotal passing her days on a patio, is keen to make an impression.

Certainly she has for those at the Pasco County Sheriff’s office, based in the Tampa Bay area. The good sheriffs got wind of a Facebook event titled “Shoot At Hurricane Irma” on Saturday, immediately sending out fitful warnings.[1] The barb of humour had struck. People had to be warned about the madness of directing weapons at Mother Nature’s finer furies in case her temper turned.

“DO NOT shoot weapons @ #Irma. You won’t make it turn around [and] it will have very dangerous side effects.” This warning is in the order of death being bad for your health. Bullets, warned the office, come back. “Don’t shoot.”[2]

The Facebook event itself, which took place on September 10, received over 80,000 responses. (And if you do care for the breakdown, 29 thousand went; 55 thousand were interested.) The “windy headass named Irma” would be shown a thing or two by the invitees. Well one thing at least: “Let’s show Irma that we shoot first.”

Responses to the event, hosted by Ryon Edwards and Zeke Murphy, were more interested in the humour of it than any intended physical, let alone literal effects But it has generated a quarry of hysterics to mine, many focused on gun culture, gallows humour and Florida. These are the follies and foibles of shooting, not necessarily related to hurricane-induced disaster.

For those happy to get into the jocular spirit of things, this was their chance at some light entertainment before the brute winds, and inevitable flooding, that Irma will bring. Links and posts to articles about Florida proliferated. Images of weapons and armaments, including infants placed beside rocket launchers, were posted showing firm resolution in the face of gloom.

Even an international dimension was injected into proceedings. “Breaking news,” posted Raghavendra Rao,

“North Korea has decided to stand by the US during hurricane Irma, and as a gesture of solidarity, it has decided to drop its h-bomb on Irma to make it turn around.”

Then there were the errors, the home video incompetents, the plain foolish to remind participants what happens in that state.

“A Florida man accidentally shot himself in the penis when he sat down on a gun in the driver’s seat of his car,” goes one post from Mike Hunter, featuring the Orlando Sentinel from July. “The sheriff’s office said the 38-year old man has a previous conviction for cocaine possession and may now face charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm.”[3]

There are others:

“Florida man shoots python that attacked family goat”; “Man robs store, then shoots himself”.

All these snippets have a certain underlying scorn to them, the upturned nose at hick madness. Humour can, after all, do its fair share of wounding. But it can just as well lighten and heal, soften impending and existing cruelties.

Not so, for the literal minded, fearful that wells of intelligence and caution were running dry. “Are you an idiot?” raged Janet Konst Wilson on the Facebook invitation wall.

“I hope no one actually follows your ‘sarcastic’ post.” Such angst, it seemed, was justifiable, because, “Not everyone recognizes sarcasm, especially when they are afraid of their lives.” Think about those law enforcement warnings, wrote Janet with priestly gravity. “You could be bringing a lot of hurt down on you [sic] own head.”

Another post from Jeff Cobb makes an assertion verging on the tone of an anti-book fatwa. If the author insults holy edicts, he should die.

“If someone dies from this,” claims Cobb, “@ryon should go to prison.”

The absurdity of adding such seriousness to the occasion diminishes on realising how Liberty Land can be so averse to the ironies of the human character. Special warnings must be issued; nothing eccentric or contrarian can be left to chance. People might just do it! And just as there are certain old jokes about the Floridian resident going troppo, there are always those who think that shooting at a natural disaster might just help.

Transforming the comic into stone serious panic amongst authorities was not confined to the US quarter. True, this is the land where biblical literalism banishes humour from discussion in the wake of fire and brimstone solemnity, but there was concerned Jiří Palička, who insisted that everyone part of “this silly happening should return his weapons and report himself to the nearest mental situation.”

As Edwards subsequently noted,

“It was cool to see the response this got from facebook. On another note, I’ve learned that about 50% of the world could not understand sarcasm to save their lives. Carry on.” As, indeed, they shall.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

Sixteen years ago, Bush officially launched the “Global War on Terrorism”, paving the way for a war without borders. The corporate media backed this illegal act of war which in turn galvanized the public for immediate support. Did  Americans unhesitatingly buy the allegations that Al-Qaeda masterminded the WTC attack and that Osama bin Laden was  the number one enemy of the Western world? 

After 16 years of unrelenting debunking of the 9/11 official narratives by genuine progressive activists, do Americans still believe what their government told them?

Below is a selection of articles.

*     *     *

The Disturbing Aftermath of 9/11

By Stephen Lendman, September 11, 2017

The day will live in infamy, the attacks planned well in advance. Bin Laden and so-called “crazed Arabs” had nothing to do with destroying the twin towers and striking the Pentagon.

September 11, 2001: Questions to Ask if You Still Believe the Official Narrative

By Tony Cartalucci, September 11, 2017

Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name “Operation Northwoods” be easily dismissed?

9/11 Unanswered Questions: Mysterious September 11, 2001 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2017

Sixteen years later, the propaganda campaign seeks to “infiltrate” the 9/11 Truth movement by bringing in the notorious 28 pages. What is now occurring is that Al Qaeda did it, but they were supported by Saudi Arabia (according to the 28 pages), all of which is meant to dispel the fact amply documented that Al Qaeda did not have the ability to bring down the towers and that Al Qaeda has been supported from the outset by the CIA. The towers were brought down through controlled demolition.

Overwhelming Evidence that 9/11, Used to Justify Washington’s Military Agenda Was a Deception. 9/11 Consensus Panel

By Consensus911.org, September 08, 2017

The first Point, “The Claim that the Hijackers were Devout Muslims,” cites many media reports that the hijackers were engaged in “decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures,” including lap dancing in Las Vegas night clubs.

Video: 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett, September 04, 2017

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

Sixteen More Convincing Reasons to Question 9/11

By Kevin Ryan, August 28, 2017

The 19 young men accused within 72-hours of the attacks were known to enjoy strip bars, alcohol, drugs, and other things that are clearly non-Muslim activities. Moreover, these suspects were not capable of accomplishing most of what was needed to pull off the crimes.

*     *     *

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

The Trump administration is renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico in secret, just as President Obama did with the TPP. Over the past two decades, NAFTA has resulted in workers losing their jobs and being replaced by machinery, ruined family farms throughout the continent, displaced communities and privatized social services, environmental disasters like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a widespread attack on labor rights and unions.

Everything the new administration has done indicates that NAFTA2 is a deal that, once again, prioritizes the interests of corporations over people and the planet. Workers in each country will be worse off, the planet will be threatened by further contamination of the environment, and big corporate interests will take precedence over the sovereignty and democracy of each country.

This week, we explain our opposition to NAFTA2 and put forward a strategy to remake trade so it is no longer corporate-driven trade for the profits of a few, but people-driven trade to benefit all and protect the planet. See the list of actions below.

Pitting Community Against Community

In the United States, while both Democrats and Republicans continued to pursue larger-scale free trade agreements with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and others, Republicans also fought against a national agenda of greater racial equality. Trump’s rejection of free trade deals that hollowed out the industrial Midwest along with his unapologetic contempt for people of color were fundamental factors for his popularity among the white working class. As a voting bloc, they decided they would benefit more from making their political allegiances based on racial supremacy rather than class unity through a labor movement that had been failed by the Democrats. Ta-Nahesi Coates’s brilliant article, “The First White President,” details how the re-formulation of this cross-class white coalition is deepening a long legacy of race playing a central role in US politics.

NAFTA is a deal that lets corporations pit North American communities against one another to attain the lowest price and the highest profit and that will not change under the Trump administration. There is no tweak or modernization that can change this fact. No deal that seeks to employ and benefit the white working class while jeopardizing the very livelihood of black and brown folks in the United States, Mexico, and Canada should be deemed acceptable to anyone and must be made politically toxic to pass. The trade justice movement must be committed to changing the corporate trade model that NAFTA represents with trade that benefits working people and the planet.

NAFTA 2 is a Trade Deal that Serves Powerful Corporations

The central struggle in NAFTA is between transnational corporations and the people and communities of North America. The Trump administration’s economic team is made up by two corporate factions that are learning to work together: advocates of free trade agreements like the TPP and economic nationalists who more explicitly seek US (white) supremacy over the international economy. Both models uphold a system in which powerful corporations and their governing allies benefit most when the people are dis-empowered. They benefit when we are displaced and divided.

The ‘Modernize’ NAFTA Camp

Free trade advocates that want NAFTA to be ‘modernized’ remain amongst the more powerful stakeholders in the negotiations, especially with the removal of Steve Bannon. Consistent with neo-liberal trade policy, under their Wall Street model of trade, they view the renegotiation of NAFTA as an opportunity to reshuffle trade by using the TPP as its foundation so the rules of the game benefit transnational corporations.

Trump’s NAFTA would likely include an expansion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism to be similar to the TPP, which allowed corporations to sue governments if they take any action that threatens potential profits. For example, the government may be sued if it violates strict intellectual property provisions like those that benefit the pharmaceutical industry in the interest of public health or if it challenges new digital trade provisions that undermine Internet freedom.

Through ISDS, transnational corporations could also sue the government if it tries to implement stronger environmental and labor regulations. The judges of these tribunals are mostly corporate lawyers who in the past have consistently ruled against any progressive legislation, resulting in millions of taxpayer dollars being handed over to corporations, as is well documented in this “Global Super Court” BuzzFeed series by Chris Hamby. The powerful players in agribusiness will keep fighting for domination over family farms, and corporations like Monsanto will keep urging legal protection of their monopoly over seeds. Unions will continue to be trampled on by corporations’ ability to pit communities, cities, and governments against each other for their own benefit. Communities of color will remain the principal victims of mass incarceration, poverty wages, workplace discrimination, and environmental racism.

The Economic Nationalism Camp

The economic nationalism camp is the Make America Great Again faction of Trump’s trade team, advocating for the government to use the country’s position as the world’s largest consumer and third largest exporter as an extortion mechanism to get unfair advantages for US corporations.

They put forward the myth that if US corporations are succeeding, then the American worker is succeeding. The fallacy of trickle-down economics has been disproven over and over again as it has only led to economic inequality and impoverishment, especially for communities of color. Without a higher minimum wage, strict enforcement of labor regulations, strong unions and the repeal of right-to-work laws, there will never be a working class that achieves justice and is treated with respect in the United States. Without basic protections for family farms, rural communities will be pushed off of their land.

Trump’s nationalistic agenda is an agenda about the dominance of the United States government and its major corporations as a world imperial power with its white nationalist and neoliberal tendencies. It is directly opposed to a vision of trade justice in which working people everywhere are collaborating to bring each other economic prosperity and environmental well-being. Without enforceable equal pay standards and an end to workplace discrimination against communities of black and brown people, immigrants, people with disabilities, and our LGBTQI+ family that prohibits our folks access to jobs with dignity and justice, there is no such thing as “Fair Trade”.

Internationally, the administration wants the ISDS to have an opt-in option so that corporations in other countries cannot sue the US government while US corporations can sue governments everywhere else. This is the camp that is bullying Mexico with threats to build a wall and make their taxpayers pay for it, to terminate NAFTA with no contention plan for a transition as a threat to pressure Mexico and Canada, to use the corporate influence over Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and a difficult 2018 election for his party to, once again, impose a US agenda over the Mexican people.

Trade must benefit the working class everywhere while combating every form of discrimination and economic inequality. When the global economy works for everyone and makes reparations for the damages of past trade deals, then we will have “Fair Trade.”

Trade for People and the Planet

We propose a vision for trade that serves working people and protects the planet. That is why we have to say #NoNAFTA2, and make a radical refusal of any new or re-worked corporate trade deals. We want to #ReplaceNAFTA with trade for people and the planet.

#NoNAFTA2

We must make sure there is #NoNAFTA2. We will not accept any more deals like the original NAFTA or TPP that are created by and for Wall Street. We will also never be complicit with a nationalist agenda that targets the poor, people of color, and basic environmental protections at home while ensuring oppression, poverty, and environmental destruction abroad. We must fight NAFTA and also #DefendDACA, make sure #Not1More person is deported, rise up because #BlackLivesMatter, and put our bodies on the line so that there is #NoWall.

We also do not support Trump’s threat to terminate the deal altogether. Any termination or re-negotiation has to happen in consideration of the real impacts for workers, preparing for important shifts in the economy that could lead to unemployment and displacement.

We will oppose the continuation and expansion of the ISDS trade tribunals that give major corporations the power to prevent laws in the public interest that protect workers, the environment, our health and our food systems, safety and access to information.

Anything short of that means more power for mega-corporations over workers, a world order constructed in complicity and collaboration with white supremacy, the selling off of our environment and our democratic sovereignty.

#ReplaceNAFTA

Our fight against NAFTA is a golden opportunity to push our vision for trade: trade for people and the planet. We want an entire replacement of NAFTA negotiated by the working class, environmentalists, consumer protection organizations, indigenous peoples, black people, immigrants, family farmers and rural communities, artists, social movements and organizations, Internet freedom and security organizations, and trade experts that care about justice and dignity for all.

We want trade that makes sure no corporation can take advantage of workers anywhere, that labor and environmental standards are high in North America and are tied to projects of economic sustainability and prosperity that are led by communities, not greedy multinational corporations. Fair trade requires free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples to be mandatory with any matters concerning their territory, sovereignty, and culture.

Fair trade would empower popular assemblies with social organizations from across the continent – as happened with the Encounter of Social Organizations of Canada, United States, and Mexico, which produced a visionary proposal for collaborations between the three countries – to have democratic decision-making power.

To achieve fair trade, negotiation must not be in secret but must be transparent. It must not be limited to transnational corporate interests but be led by broad civil society organizations, family farmers and small businesses to participate. There must be democratic checks and balances as the negotiation proceeds, accompanied by public hearings and legislative oversight. Ending corporate trade will not occur by tinkering, but through the transformation of the process and goals of trade deals.

Our Strategy for Action

Our first task is education, this requires exposing NAFTA for the corporate trade deal it is through corporate and social media and then mobilizing people to take action in all three countries. Our second task is delaying the negotiation process as much as possible. The Mexican presidential elections of mid-2018 and the congressional elections of the US in fall of 2018 are critical factors that will change the political climate. There will be a surge in progressive politics in both countries, creating a much more favorable electoral panorama that will help make sure corporations cannot lock in this disastrous replay of NAFTA. We cannot let these secret negotiations go under the radar, we must expose them.

The NAFTA renegotiation must be at the forefront of the national political agenda as occurred with the TPP. Voters in the US and Mexico must make support of another corporate NAFTA a central issue in 2018 so that politicians who support trade for big business pay a political price. Renegotiation of NAFTA should not be conducted by an outgoing Mexican president who does the bidding of big business or by a US Congress in bed with transnational corporate interests and a racist President. Replacing NAFTA must be an issue for the 2019-2020 electoral agenda as well. This is an opportunity to revolutionize trade for the well-being of the people and the planet.

Here are the actions we are taking now to make that happen:

Twitter Storm

Every negotiation round (every three weeks for the rest of the year) we will organize a Twitter Storm to let negotiators know that we are watching and we are shaping the conversation. In addition, these twitter storms will be used to educate and activate people  in the US, Mexico and Canada. This has already started. On the inaugural day of NAFTA’s renegotiation, Popular Resistance launched a #NoNAFTA2 Twitter Storm that produced over 1,900 tweets and generated over 800,000 impressions.

The next round will be in Canada this month. For more information follow us on Twitter @PopResistance,@FlushtheTPP (trade for people and planet’s twitter) and join Trade for People and Planet.

#NoNAFTA2 October Action

Protests are building in Mexico and must do so in the US and Canada. The movement for fair trade must protest at every NAFTA negotiation to show opposition and build the movement for fair trade. The fourth round of NAFTA negotiations will be held in Washington, D.C. in October and we will be outside their secret meetings making our voices heard. We want Trade for People and the Planet. For more information follow our Facebook page!

Pressure Congress to revoke Fast Track

The Obama administration managed to pass Fast Track (or Trade Promotion Authority), which limits Congress to an up or down vote on the TPP without any ability to amend the deal. Fast Track legislation is applicable to all trade deals until July 31, 2018 with the option of an extension through 2021. We must pressure members of Congress to revoke Trade Promotion Authority by making NAFTA 2 as politically toxic as the TPP.

Congress must Choose the People, Not Big Corporations

NAFTA2 is a conflict between corporations and the people, Congress has to pick a side and suffer the consequences when elections occur. Will they stand with their big corporate donors or with the people they were elected to serve? If they stand with big business interests, they will lose elections as voters will not support them.

The movement of movements that came together to stop the TPP was able to make TPP stand for “‘toxic political poison’. Trump’s NAFTA plans are no different and the diverse groups that will be negatively impacted must come together to stop toxic corporate trade once again. We can do so and when we win, we need to transform trade so it serves the people and protects the planet.

Join the campaign for trade that puts people and the planet first. For more information and to get active, join the Trade for People and Planet mailing list.

Daniel Cooper Bermudez is Campaign Coordinator of Trade for People and Planet.

Australia is having an energy crisis. A country with such abundant resources is incapable it seems, of handling matters of reliable supply, either in terms of affordability, or in terms of delivery. The situation has been further muddied by the inability of the parties in parliament to find common ground. The gloves are off, and there is blood in the chambers.

The blame game is being fanned with the enthusiasm of Tourette syndrome sufferers. The impoverished state of Australian political speak is evident in the use of various terms of derision. Labor frontbencher, Joel Fitzgibbon, has become “No coal Joel” to members of the government.

The leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, has been labelled by the uninventive Prime Minister “Electricity Blackout Bill”. “There’s never been a more exciting time,” rues comedian Mark Humphries, “for crap nicknames.”[1]

A political form of schizophrenia has developed towards the energy market, though it had already announced its arrival with the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Apparently leaving matters to the market, the religious bread and butter of the conservative coalition government, is not the way to go on this one.

This interventionist approach has manifested itself in two ways. Companies, like AGL, are battered (at first glance) into making business choices that favour the LNP’s policy agenda. Monsters like Adani are rewarded with subsidies to further mine a commodity that is fast reaching economic obsolescence.

The Turnbull government, in a state of numbing panic, has badgered AGL boss Andy Vesey who is intent on moving his company from coal generation to renewables. This would see the coal fired Liddell power station in New South Wales’ Hunter Valley closed.

In horror, the government is intent on treating the energy issue as an ideological one, though it has shaped it as a matter of necessity more for their survival than anything else. This necessity was borne, supposedly, by the assessment by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) that much of the east and southern coast of the country could face the prospect of intermittent blackouts this scorching summer.[2] Just to add some zest to the forecast, the AEMO also suggested these might continue for many more summers.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his colleagues, preferring to turn their minds away from the repeated comments by Vesey that the Liddell power station’s days were numbered, took the insistent route. Insist, for instance, that the station be sold to a third party rather than close. Insist that this agreement would enable the station to produce electricity for five years beyond 2022 so that it might make up for the possible 1000 megawatt shortfall in dispatchable base load power.

Coal, the Turnbull government has decided, cannot be factored out. Never mind what the penny counting banks say; or the somewhat unscrupulous energy companies themselves. Or the bleeding heart environmentalists and the cool calculating economists, the latter reminding the government that using coal for electricity is no longer viable.

As one of the doyens of the Australian science establishment, Alan Finkel, noted in his independent review of Australia’s national electricity market, wind and solar sources are proving more attractive, with coal losing its economic edge.[3] Listening to members of the government coalition, and you might be tempted to think otherwise.

Caught in a dinosaur’s twilight zone, the Turnbull government has brought its knuckledusters to the political podium. The opposition Labor party has been clipped around the ears: Do you really want to be responsible for putting coal workers out of work in your electorate, No coal Joel?

The result of hectoring Vasey yielded a minor, if only distracting concession – 90 days, in fact – during which options to keep the station open, selling it, or finding a suitable market equivalent to ensure supply, will be considered. In the cocksure words of Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, the outcomes would ensure that there would be no “adverse impact on consumers in terms of those price and reliability on the system.”

The bully of the show, in this case the prime minister, was less sure. AGL had not “articulated what [the plan] is, so we don’t know and, frankly, I don’t think they do either.” Naturally: having wished to close the plant and move off coal, the board was now being asked to revise, renege, and repudiate.

The Greens climate change spokesman Adam Bandt MP was unimpressed by the proceedings: Turnbull was simply delaying the sword of inevitability:

“All the government has done has forced AGL to bring forward its planning for new renewables. AGL’s board will discuss what they were going to discuss anyway.”[4]

Vesey’s own comments suggest that.

“Short term, new development will continue to favour renewables supported by gas peaking. Longer term, we see this trend continuing with large scale battery deployment enhancing the value of renewable technology.”[5]

Even after receiving a mock bruising from Turnbull, Vesey could still maintain the unflappable line on coal.

“In this environment, we just don’t see new development of coal as economically rational, even before factoring in a carbon cost.”

Turnbull’s handiwork had not extracted everything government members had wanted. Taking the truncheon to the energy companies has been fashionable of late down under, and the identifiable Vesey has certainly left his mark on members of the Coalition.

“It appears,” claimed an accusing Craig Kelly MP, “AGL speaks with forked tongue.”[6]

Less forked, perhaps, than realistic.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

Australia is having an energy crisis. A country with such abundant resources is incapable it seems, of handling matters of reliable supply, either in terms of affordability, or in terms of delivery. The situation has been further muddied by the inability of the parties in parliament to find common ground. The gloves are off, and there is blood in the chambers.

The blame game is being fanned with the enthusiasm of Tourette syndrome sufferers. The impoverished state of Australian political speak is evident in the use of various terms of derision. Labor frontbencher, Joel Fitzgibbon, has become “No coal Joel” to members of the government.

The leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, has been labelled by the uninventive Prime Minister “Electricity Blackout Bill”. “There’s never been a more exciting time,” rues comedian Mark Humphries, “for crap nicknames.”[1]

A political form of schizophrenia has developed towards the energy market, though it had already announced its arrival with the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Apparently leaving matters to the market, the religious bread and butter of the conservative coalition government, is not the way to go on this one.

This interventionist approach has manifested itself in two ways. Companies, like AGL, are battered (at first glance) into making business choices that favour the LNP’s policy agenda. Monsters like Adani are rewarded with subsidies to further mine a commodity that is fast reaching economic obsolescence.

The Turnbull government, in a state of numbing panic, has badgered AGL boss Andy Vesey who is intent on moving his company from coal generation to renewables. This would see the coal fired Liddell power station in New South Wales’ Hunter Valley closed.

In horror, the government is intent on treating the energy issue as an ideological one, though it has shaped it as a matter of necessity more for their survival than anything else. This necessity was borne, supposedly, by the assessment by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) that much of the east and southern coast of the country could face the prospect of intermittent blackouts this scorching summer.[2] Just to add some zest to the forecast, the AEMO also suggested these might continue for many more summers.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his colleagues, preferring to turn their minds away from the repeated comments by Vesey that the Liddell power station’s days were numbered, took the insistent route. Insist, for instance, that the station be sold to a third party rather than close. Insist that this agreement would enable the station to produce electricity for five years beyond 2022 so that it might make up for the possible 1000 megawatt shortfall in dispatchable base load power.

Coal, the Turnbull government has decided, cannot be factored out. Never mind what the penny counting banks say; or the somewhat unscrupulous energy companies themselves. Or the bleeding heart environmentalists and the cool calculating economists, the latter reminding the government that using coal for electricity is no longer viable.

As one of the doyens of the Australian science establishment, Alan Finkel, noted in his independent review of Australia’s national electricity market, wind and solar sources are proving more attractive, with coal losing its economic edge.[3] Listening to members of the government coalition, and you might be tempted to think otherwise.

Caught in a dinosaur’s twilight zone, the Turnbull government has brought its knuckledusters to the political podium. The opposition Labor party has been clipped around the ears: Do you really want to be responsible for putting coal workers out of work in your electorate, No coal Joel?

The result of hectoring Vasey yielded a minor, if only distracting concession – 90 days, in fact – during which options to keep the station open, selling it, or finding a suitable market equivalent to ensure supply, will be considered. In the cocksure words of Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, the outcomes would ensure that there would be no “adverse impact on consumers in terms of those price and reliability on the system.”

The bully of the show, in this case the prime minister, was less sure. AGL had not “articulated what [the plan] is, so we don’t know and, frankly, I don’t think they do either.” Naturally: having wished to close the plant and move off coal, the board was now being asked to revise, renege, and repudiate.

The Greens climate change spokesman Adam Bandt MP was unimpressed by the proceedings: Turnbull was simply delaying the sword of inevitability:

“All the government has done has forced AGL to bring forward its planning for new renewables. AGL’s board will discuss what they were going to discuss anyway.”[4]

Vesey’s own comments suggest that.

“Short term, new development will continue to favour renewables supported by gas peaking. Longer term, we see this trend continuing with large scale battery deployment enhancing the value of renewable technology.”[5]

Even after receiving a mock bruising from Turnbull, Vesey could still maintain the unflappable line on coal.

“In this environment, we just don’t see new development of coal as economically rational, even before factoring in a carbon cost.”

Turnbull’s handiwork had not extracted everything government members had wanted. Taking the truncheon to the energy companies has been fashionable of late down under, and the identifiable Vesey has certainly left his mark on members of the Coalition.

“It appears,” claimed an accusing Craig Kelly MP, “AGL speaks with forked tongue.”[6]

Less forked, perhaps, than realistic.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

Last week the Syrian Army (SAA) backed by allied forces broke years-long ISIS siege of Deir Ezzor. Residents of the city were sincerely greeting liberators of the city. According to many experts, the SAA’s success is an important step towards total elimination of ISIS.

This, of course, can be considered as a defeat of the West and its ‘partners’, who had worked with the Syrian armed opposition and radical groups including ISIS hoping to oust Assad.

The real prospect of the SAA would retake control over the oil-rich territories has made the U.S.-led Coalition launch a new military operation in Deir Ezzor. Apparently, the White House makes every effort to prevent the SAA from liberating the city from terrorists.

The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced on Saturday the launching Jazeera storm campaign in Syria’s Deir Ezzor, which was aimed at capturing areas in northern and eastern countryside and advancing towards the Euphrates River.

The U.S. intention to prevent the SAA is confirmed by Major General Rupert Jones, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the US-led Coalition. Sunday, Jones threatened to strike any units of the SAA if it crossed the Euphrates River.

At the same time, the U.S. takes another step to prevent Assad to establish control over the country. September 22, 2017, the Kurdish-led administration in northern Syria will hold elections for local councils and a regional assembly. In January, 2018, Kurds will hold the elections for the region as a whole. This, undoubtedly, won’t be coordinated with the Syrian government.

Obviously, such kinds of promises were made only by the United States. That’s why the SDF forces fight so selflessly and to give their full support to the U.S. ideas.

Despite all threatens, the Syrian government maintains a firm position. In response to the unprecedented actions of the U.S.-led Coalition, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad said the presence of any foreign forces in Syria would be unacceptable. According to Mekdad, the United States forces had better leave Syrian territory on their own, otherwise, they will be treated as “occupying forces.”

Besides, the SAA is planning to cross the Euphrates River in Deir Ezzor Governorate after liberating several areas along the western bank of the river and liberate more oil-rich territory.

It is obvious that for the SAA Deir Ezzor will become the decisive battlefield not only against ISIS terrorists, but also against the hypocritical ambitions of the West, led by the United States.

Anna Jaunger is a freelance journalist at Inside Syria Media Center where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News.

Global Research announces the forthcoming release of  the print edition of Mark Taliano’s Book, “Voices from Syria”  which includes two additional chapters. 

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

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

Special Pre-Publication Offer

**Pre-Order Special Offer: Voices from Syria (Ships mid-September)

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 2 new chapters)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

On Monday 11 September 2017, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, one of the UN high-ranked officials, ranted at United Nations Human Rights Council (OHCHR), Geneva, condemning the behaviour of the government of Myanmar as “brutal security operation” against the people of Rohingya which was disproportionate to the operation of Rohingya insurgents took place in August 2017.

Hussein demanded from the government of Myanmar to bring its cruel military operation to a halt against the defenceless people of Rohingya.[i] The military operation in Rohingya hitherto has been condemned, on several occasions, by the UN and Amnesty International. On 5 September 2017, António Guterres, the secretary-General of the UN, demanded from the government of Myanmar to desist from its violence against Rohingya people.

According to the report of the UN, more than 313,000 people have been forced to flee from Myanmar to Bangladesh to date. António Guterres announced that this violence can destabilise the region.[ii] About 400,000 of Muslim ethnic minority in western Myanmar are exposed to the hazard of ethnic cleansing. The government of Myanmar has blocked the route of food, water, medicine, and first aid to Rohingya. Amnesty International declared those behaviours, against Rohingya Muslim minority, against the freedom of religion and the freedom of belief. According to the report of Amnesty International, rape, forced labour, arbitrary arrests, torture, and recruitment of child soldiers took place in the process of ethnic cleansing, and the government of Myanmar deliberately has refused from the help and assistance of Muslims in Rohingya.[iii] All the actions took place against the Muslims of Rohingya, by the government of Myanmar, are against the fundamental principles of international law.

Although the problem of discrimination against the minority of Muslim population in Rohingya is not a new problem, the situation of the region, especially after the attack of Rohingya insurgents on the police of Burma in October 2016 has deteriorated. In that attack 9 policemen were killed. The security forces of Burma responded those attacks with clearance operation and have impeded the interference of all humanitarian organisations in the region. Again, on 25 August 2017, when insurgents of Rohingya attacked 24 security sites and killed 12 policemen, the police of Myanmar arranged wider attacks against all the defenceless civilians of Rohingya, rather than separating between ordinary people and Rohingya insurgents.

No report of execution hitherto has been rendered. But it has been reported that the courts of Burma are issuing repeatedly the order of execution. Although the issuance of the orders is contrary to the order of the parliament of Burma in October 2016 according to which 1950 Emergency Provisions Act has been repealed, the courts, drawing upon other rules yet in force, are trying to issue more execution orders. Apart from executions by the orders of the courts, according to unofficial statistics, 3000 people have been killed to date.[iv] Soldiers and security forces of Burma shoot randomly at civilian people, rape women, set fire to villages, arrest the people arbitrarily and torture them.

Although the government of Burma has not been signed and ratified hitherto many crucial documents of human rights including Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), Burma was one of 48 states that voted in favour of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. In addition to these, according to the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2006, in Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, genocide is the infringement of peremptory norms (jus cogens).[v] Next year the ICJ suggested in the same case that the phrase “… Genocide … is a crime under international law …” in article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) means that the rule of the prevention of genocide is a customary rule of international law. It is worth noting that CPPCG in 1948 has been adopted by the general assembly of the UN and became in force on 12 January 1951. CPPCG embraces an international recognised definition of genocide expressed in article 2 thereof. According to article 2 of CPPCG:

“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, 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.”

Some jurists maintain that the actions of the government of Myanmar constitutes the infringement of the sections a, b, c of CPPCG, article 2. They suggest that the “intent to destroy” in states, i.e.mental element (mens rea), means the policy of destruction which is seen in the acts of the government of Burma against its Muslim minorities in Rohingya.

Whereas the verification of the “intent to destroy” is pretty difficult, and none of the Burmese officials has expressed explicitly their intention to destroy the Muslims of Rohingya, it can be asserted that the act of the government of Burma is “crime against humanity”.

According to the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda:

“Genocide requires proof of an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group; this is not required by extermination as a crime against humanity. Extermination as a crime against humanity requires proof that the crime was committed as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, which proof is not required in the case of genocide.”[vi]

Crime against humanity is also, according to reliable international documents, an infringement of international peremptory norms [vii] and, it goes without saying that, its exercise hurts the conscience of international community. Crime against humanity is a part of general customary international law and the language of international documents shows that this crime has a particular situation in international law. In its report of the situation of Myanmar in 2016/2017, Amnesty International, has used two times the term “crime against humanity” and attributed it, probably, to the government of Myanmar. According to the report:

“The response collectively punished the entire Rohingya community in northern Rakhine State and the conduct of the security forces may have amounted to crimes against humanity.”[viii]

Of course the date of the issuance of the report was the time in which the number of the dead had not yet been increased. With every passing day, by increasing actions of the government of Myanmar against international law, the opinion which adheres the thought that the government of Burma is committing crime against humanity is more amplified. An impartial bystander cannot disavow that “ethnic cleansing” in Burma is in process at the moment.

Grisly news attained from Rohingya discovers the depth of the crimes against Muslim minority population of Myanmar. The orchestrated irregular attacks by some radical elements backed by security forces against the people of Rohingya has culminated in losing lives of a considerable number of Muslims and has exacerbated the record of Myanmar in discrimination, injustice, and hopelessness. This exacerbation arouses the feelings of the people of the world, against the government of Myanmar, irrespective of their religion or nationality. In case of not paying attention to the organised widespread infringement of fundamental rights of Muslims of Rohingya, extremism increases and violation spreads even beyond the borders of Myanmar and destabilises the whole region.Expelling people from their own homeland and forcing them to emigrate from their own country cannot solve such a deep-rooted crisis. The government of Myanmar has to take the prolonged anxieties of its Muslim minorities and their plight into consideration and observe their rights effectively and recognise them like other Burmese civilians, protecting them against violation and discrimination.

International community, especially Muslim countries, expect from the government of Myanmar to bring current violations against the Muslim minorities of Rohingya to a halt, and provide their access to humanitarian aids with no limitation. It is also necessary for the government of Myanmar to bring the suspects to trial and take all necessary steps to prevent recurring such events. Unfortunately, no logical response, to this minimum demand of international community, has been received. It is also expected that the UN act as soon as possible and perform all necessary actions to obviate the anxieties of international community about the exacerbating situation of Burma. The protection of the UN from decreasing violence, and gaining assurance from rendering humanitarian aids and assistance to the people in need and finding a sustainable solution for such a crisis seems necessary and the UN must act as soon as possible.

Amir Abbas Amirshekari is PhD in International Law (University of Tehran, Iran), Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Johannesburg, South Africa (2014-2016), Advocate (Iran Bar Association). He can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

[i] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/11/un-myanmars-treatment-of-rohingya-textbook-example-of-ethnic-cleansing

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/05/more-than-120000-rohingya-flee-myanmar-violence-un-says

[iii] https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/myanmar/report-myanmar/

[iv] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYuaaP-J3WAhVhG5oKHWVeAsEQqUMILTAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2017%2Fsep%2F11%2Fun-myanmars-treatment-of-rohingya-textbook-example-of-ethnic-cleansing&usg=AFQjCNH1aeVUf3yUqoUHcBAuj8FJHRouCw

[v] Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, 3 February 2006, para. 64.

[vi] Prosecutor v. Musema (Case No. ICTR-96-13-A), Judgment, 16 November 2001, para. 363. Also: Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T), Judgment and Sentence, 1 December 2003, para. 751.

[vii] The 1993 International Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia and the 1994 International Tribunal for Rwanda statutes include the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3217th mtg., at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993) and the Statute for the International Tribunal for Rwanda, U.N. SCOR, 49th Sess., 3453rd mtg., at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), and address Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes. The 1996 Code of Crimes includes these three crimes plus Aggression. See Draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind: Titles and Articles on the Draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind adopted by the International Law Commission on its Forty-Eighth Session, U.N. GAOR, 51st Sess., U.N. Doc. A/CN.4L.532 (1996), revised by U.N. Doc. A/CN.4L.532/Corr.1 and U.N. Doc. A/CN.4l.532/Corr.3; Crimes Against U.N. Personnel, in M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW CONVENTIONS (1997 in print) [hereinafter BASSIOUNI, ICL CONVENTIONS].

[viii] https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/myanmar/report-myanmar/

Featured image: NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg 

While the US continued to provocatively intensify tensions with North Korea, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg joined the chorus of condemnation against Pyongyang over its sixth nuclear test on September 3.

Speaking to the BBC yesterday, Stoltenberg denounced North Korea’s “reckless behavior” as “a global threat” that “requires a global response and that of course also includes NATO.” While saying he would not speculate on whether NATO members would be required to join a war against North Korea if the US were attacked, he did not rule it out.

Stoltenberg told the Guardian on Friday the world was “more dangerous” than at any time in his 30-year career.

“It is more unpredictable, and it’s more difficult because we have so many challenges at the same time,” he said, pointing to “weapons of mass destruction in North Korea,” as well as terrorism and “a more assertive Russia.”

The NATO chief was visiting British troops stationed in Estonia, having toured NATO battle groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. He claimed the troops were in “defensive” mobilisation as Russia and Belarus prepared for large-scale military exercises this week. In reality, Washington’s military push into Eastern Europe via NATO is fueling a confrontation with Russia.

Similarly, US President Donald Trump, following on from the Obama administration, has dramatically heightened tensions with North Korea, threatening last month to engulf it in “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” In response, the Pyongyang regime has concluded that its only means of preventing a US attack is to develop a nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible.

Speaking to the BBC yesterday, British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon hinted the UK could become involved in a US-led war against North Korea, saying the country could pose a threat to London.

“This involves us,” he said, because “London is closer to North Korea and its missiles than Los Angeles.”

He admitted that North Korean missiles could not reach the UK, but said their range was getting “longer and longer.”

While emphasising the need for a “diplomatic solution,” Fallon insisted:

“We have to get this program halted because the dangers now of miscalculation, of some accident triggering a response, are extremely great.” If attacked, the US “of course, under the United Nations, has the right to ask other members of the United Nations to join in its self-defence.”

The danger of catastrophic war in Asia is provoking deep fears in Europe and exacerbating divisions with Washington. In an interview published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung on Sunday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggested that the deal struck in 2015 with Iran to limit its nuclear program might form the basis for negotiations with North Korea.

“Europe and especially Germany should be prepared to play a very active part in that,” she said.

Merkel’s proposal of an Iran-type deal with North Korea will not be welcome in Washington. Trump has repeatedly denounced the agreement with Iran, threatened to pull out of it, and dismissed the possibility of a negotiated end to the standoff with North Korea.

Washington has ratcheted up pressure on China and Russia to agree to a new US resolution to be discussed in the UN Security Council today. The resolution is expected to include a full embargo on oil exports to North Korea, as well as a partial naval blockade that would give UN member states the right to board and inspect ships suspected of breaking sanctions.

China and Russia are expected to oppose a complete oil export ban, which would precipitate an economic and political crisis in Pyongyang. Beijing and Moscow fear that the US and its allies would exploit any breakdown in North Korea to instal a pro-US regime in their backyard.

Last Thursday, Trump declared that US presidents had been “talking, talking, talking” with North Korea for 25 years, but its nuclear program had continued.

“So I would prefer not going the route of the military, but it’s something certainly that could happen,” he warned.

Trump boasted that “our military has never been stronger.” In another threat to North Korea, he stated:

“Each day new equipment is delivered—new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world, the best anywhere in the world, by far. Hopefully we’re not going to have to use it on North Korea. If we do use it on North Korea, it will be a very sad day for North Korea.”

Based on senior White House and Pentagon officials, NBC News reported last Friday that the Trump administration was “readying a package of diplomatic and military moves against North Korea, including cyberattacks and increased surveillance and intelligence operations.”

Trump was also “seriously considering adopting diplomatically risky sanctions on Chinese banks doing business with Pyongyang” and “not ruling out moving tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea should Seoul request them.” South Korea’s defence minister last week suggested the US could place tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea.

Not only would such a move end US claims to be seeking to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, but greatly heighten the danger of nuclear war, through accident or miscalculation.

According to NBC, the White House had reviewed the full gamut of options, including attacking North Korea with nuclear weapons. The article stated:

“A first use of nuclear weapons would be extremely aggressive and lack support domestically or among international allies, the senior administration official said.”

“We talk about all kinds of crazy stuff we never do,” the official told NBC. “Then you know why you rule it out.”

No one should accept such assurances. The very fact that a nuclear first strike on North Korea is being discussed indicates it is under active consideration. Washington’s constant mantra that “all options are on the table” shows that nothing is ruled out in a US attack on North Korea.

NBC also reported that China warned Trump administration officials that if the US struck North Korea first, Beijing would back Pyongyang. If North Korea hit a US target, however, that “changes everything,” a senior administration official said. In other words, if the Trump administration can goad North Korea into making a military move with its provocative threats and actions, China might stay on the sideline.

This situation highlights the extraordinary recklessness of the US administration. As it prepares for war with North Korea, the US government knows full well that it could rapidly come into conflict with China, which it regards as the chief obstacle to global American dominance.

Un vasto arco di tensioni e conflitti si estende dall’Asia orientale a quella centrale, dal Medioriente all’Europa, dall’Africa all’America latina. I «punti caldi» lungo questo arco intercontinentale – Penisola coreana, Mar Cinese Meridionale, Afghanistan, Siria, Iraq, Iran, Ucraina, Libia, Venezuela e altri – hanno storie e caratteristiche geopolitiche diverse, ma sono allo stesso tempo collegati a un unico fattore: la strategia con cui «l’impero americano d’Occidente», in declino, cerca di impedire l’emergere di nuovi soggetti statuali e sociali. Che cosa Washington tema lo si capisce dal Summit dei Brics (Brasile, Russia, India, Cina, Sudafrica) svoltosi il 3-5 settembre a Xiamen in Cina.

Esprimendo «le preoccupazioni dei Brics sull’ingiusta architettura economica e finanziaria globale, che non tiene in considerazione il crescente peso delle economie emergenti», il presidente russo Putin ha sottolineato la necessità di «superare l’eccessivo dominio del limitato numero di valute di riserva». Chiaro il riferimento al dollaro Usa, che costituisce quasi i due terzi delle riserve valutarie mondiali e la valuta con cui si determina il prezzo del petrolio, dell’oro e di altre materie prime strategiche. Ciò permette agli Usa di mantenere un ruolo dominante, stampando dollari il cui valore si basa non sulla reale capacità economica statunitense ma sul fatto che vengono usati quale valuta globale. Lo yuan cinese è però entrato un anno fa nel paniere delle valute di riserva del Fondo monetario internazionale (insieme a dollaro, euro, yen e sterlina) e Pechino sta per lanciare contratti di acquisto del petrolio in yuan, convertibili in oro.

I Brics richiedono inoltre la revisione delle quote e quindi dei voti attribuiti a ciascun paese all’interno del Fondo monetario: gli Usa, da soli, detengono più del doppio dei voti complessivi di 24 paesi dell’America latina (Messico compreso) e il G7 detiene il triplo dei voti del gruppo dei Brics. Washington guarda con crescente preoccupazione alla partnership russo-cinese: l’interscambio tra i due paesi, che nel 2017 dovrebbe raggiungere gli 80 miliardi di dollri, è in forte crescita; aumentano allo stesso tempo gli accordi di cooperazione russo-cinese in campo energetico, agricolo, aeronautico, spaziale e in quello delle infrastrutture. L’annunciato acquisto del 14% della compagnia petrolifera russa Rosneft da parte di una compagnia cinese e la fornitura di gas russo alla Cina per 38 miliardi di metri cubi annui attraverso il nuovo gasdotto Sila Sibiri, che entrerà in funzione nel 2019, aprono all’export energetico russo la via ad Est mentre gli Usa cercano di bloccargli la via ad Ovest verso l’Europa.

Perdendo terreno sul piano economico, gli Usa gettano sul piatto della bilancia la spada della loro forza militare e influenza politica. La pressione militare Usa nel Mar Cinese Meridionale e nella penisola coreana, le guerre Usa/Nato in Afghanistan, Medioriente e Africa, la spallata Usa/Nato in Ucraina e il conseguente confronto con la Russia, rientrano nella stessa strategia di confronto globale con la partnership russo-cinese, che non è solo economica ma geopolitica. Vi rientra anche il piano di minare i Brics dall’interno, riportando le destre al potere in Brasile e in tutta l’America latina. Lo conferma il comandante dello U.S. Southern Command, Kurt Tidd, che sta preparando contro il Venezuela l’«opzione militare» minacciata da Trump: in una audizione al senato, accusa Russia e Cina di esercitare una «maligna influenza» in America latina, per far avanzare anche qui «la loro visione di un ordine internazionale alternativo».

Manlio Dinucci

Many think tourism is something Israel and Palestine are agreeing and tourism is a peace industry – they may be wrong.

Besides the confirmation hearing for the next UNWTO Secretary General, another important decision is the application by the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Tourism for a full membership as a country into the United Nations World Tourism Organization. The application for Palestine was submitted last year and the full General Assembly has to agree with a two third majority to accept Palestine as a new country to join the organization. The full General Assembly is getting together in Chengdu, China next week. Palestine became a full member of UNESCO in 2011.

Tourism is an important revenue channel for Palestine and also Israel. However, Israel is indirectly in control of Palestine tourism since all international borders are controlled by the Jewish State. The UNWTO “human right for tourists to travel” does not always apply when it comes to visiting Palestine, and having to deal with Israel’s rules.

From time to time, Israel puts more restrictions on tourism to Palestine, including disallowing western visitors to re-enter Israel when staying in a hotel in Palestine.

However, cooperation between Palestine and Israel is an important and successful activity, and organizations including the International Institute for Peace Through Tourism and its founder Louis D’Amore had worked tirelessly for decades to make both Israel and Palestine understand the importance of tourism and peace. Louis d’Amore will be attending the UNWTO General Assembly in Chengdu next week.

The Israel Foreign Ministry’s spokesman said that Israel’s position is that the “State Of Palestine” does not exist, and therefore it cannot be accepted as a state in the UN or in any of its affiliated organizations.

Israel, of course, knows money always talks, and diplomatic pressure has been put on Taleb Rifai, the current Jordanian Secretary General to disallow Palestine’s move. Money talks and Israel’s foreign ministry threatened: Granting state membership to the Palestinians will lead to a greater politicization of the organization and a cut in funding. Furthermore, the Jewish State continues its pressure on UWNTO member states saying:

“We are not expecting any negative impact on Israel or its continued activity in the organization – the expected damage will be to the organization itself.”

“Israel has taken all diplomatic measures to block the request,” an Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman told the Jerusalem Post.

The United States of America is not a member of UNWTO, but Israel Israel has also involved the Americans, who have warned the Palestinians that their joining the organization could have consequences in their relations with the US.

The application for Palestine is expected to be confirmed, especially since countries who could be counted on to support Israel and vote against the move – such as the US, Canada, the U.K.and Australia – are not members of the UNWTO.

Having Palestine as a full voting member of this global community could be an important step forward to secure peace and expand on tourism making the occupied territory seen less occupied and more independent.

Featured image: Ryan Khaldani, a leader of the Popular Mobilization Units-aligned Babylon Battalions

“The American planes bombed our positions to prevent us from reaching the Nineveh Plains”, said Ryan Khaldani, a leader of the Popular Mobilization Units-aligned Babylon Battalions, adding that the countries, known to be hostile to Iraq, are looking for ways to create tensions in the country, especially as regards the post-ISIS era.

In an interview with Al Mayadeen network, Khaldani said that both, the US-led international anti-ISIS coalition and the Kurdish Peshmerga were deliberately making moves that benefited ISIS, while causing damage to the Iraqi forces fighting ISIS.

He also said his movement firmly opposes the forthcoming referendum on independence of the so-called “Iraqi Kurdistan”, noting that his movement will not allow not even an inch of the Nineveh Plains to be taken away from its original inhabitants.

He, however, said that for now his movement will not raise its arms against Peshmerga, although it might resort to tougher measures should the latter try to take the land by force.

On September 24th, the Barazani regime in so-called “Iraqi Kurdistan” will hold a referendum on the province’s independence from Iraq.

Translated by Samer Hussein

In Mariupol, on the territory of the local airport, Ukrainian nationalists organized a concentration camp, which works to this day. In it punishers torture and kill people who don’t agree with the policy that is conducted by Kiev.

This was stated by the participant of the movement of liberation of Mariupol Irina Popova during an interview, reports the correspondent of Politnavigator.

Also she spoke about how exactly in the city another anniversary of the liberation from fascist aggressors was celebrated, and emphasized the fact that, despite all the attempts of the authorities to show that the city continues to lead a peaceful life, the situation there is far from being easy.

Irina Popova: “Events devoted to the Day of liberation of Mariupol from German fascist invaders were held at the initiative of the residents themselves who, for example, on September 9th came to a meeting in a small group in the Levoberezhny district. Also at the initiative of the city’s landscapers 500 bushes of flowers were planted. This day is a celebration of liberation from German fascist invaders, and, as far as Ukrainian propaganda tries to present Mariupol as a city of wellbeing, in reality the situation there is not simple at all, but very difficult.

I will describe it in an everyday picture: a person in Ukrainian military or police uniform comes onto a bus. Passengers immediately stop talking, everyone turns away and looks out of the window. What can be said here? About a normal situation in the city? Of course, no.

Many residents of Mariupol know firsthand how their acquaintances, relatives, and work colleagues disappear without a trace. Members of families of missing persons, being afraid of punishment in regards to their relatives, very often are simply afraid to submit statements to the police about the disappearance of their relatives.

And there is now no doubt that such punishment is being carried out. As such a concentration camp was already at work in Mariupol airport, it still continues to act. Nobody closed this airport. Many are being shown it for the purpose of intimidation. For example, they brought a mother to the airport, whose son had been detained, and they just kept her there for 48 hours. She was simply led to the places of shooting and torture. And I can imagine what mood and what psychological state she was in after what she had seen.

You understand, this person won’t be shown on the Ukrainian television, as well as the airport itself, but that will show the festival ‘Chervona Ruta’. Unfortunately, it is two realities: one is on TV, and another is in the real life of the residents of Mariupol, who wait for liberation and for our arrival.”

I.e., in fact, in Mariupol there is now terror?

Irina Popova: “It is unambiguously terror, and this excess cannot be called anything else.”

Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

The next stage of the case involving the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is to be heard on 15 September in the Supreme Court (SC). GM mustard could be India’s first commercially cultivated GM food crop, which could very well open the floodgates to the commercialisation of various other food crops that are in the pipeline.

Lead petitioner Aruna Rodrigues is seeking a moratorium on the environmental release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the absence of comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocols in the public domain and biosafety studies conducted by independent expert bodies the results of which are made available in public domain.

The petitioners argue that the present circumstances warrant a prohibition on commercial release of DMH-11 mustard in view of the fact that:

• Mustard is a crop of origin/diversity in India
• DMH-11 and parental lines contain herbicide tolerant (HT) traits
• DMH11 has failed to satisfy the prior requirement of ‘need’ of this crop as evidenced from the results of the open field trials
• The conduct of Biosafety Research Level (‘BRL’) trials were comprehensively flawed and are invalid

In this ongoing saga, two government ‘additional affidavits’ were recently submitted to the SC, following the recommendations of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) to permit the environmental release of DMH-11 and its transgenic parental lines.

The government says that only 15 kilograms of DMH-11 would be planted in the upcoming winter season (beginning from Oct 2017) to demonstrate its yield potential and commercial viability. It has revealed plans for hybrid seed production in preparation for commercial use in approx. two years.

It also reiterates its claims that DMH-11 is not a HT crop. It claims it has been developed through ‘hybridization technology’. The government averred that DMH-11 does not pose any risk to human/animal health or the environment. Furthermore, it urged that the DMH-11 and other hybrids using this technology are necessary to improve yields in mustard in India which has been ‘stagnant around 7-8 MT for the last 20 years’.

The government has not only projected the hybrid seed production of DMH-11 as an innocuous and harmless procedure, but also revealed its predisposed mind to permit commercialisation of GE Mustard.

Exposing the government’s claims

In response to this, Aruna Rodrigues has submitted a 45-page ‘Addtional Affidavit Reply’ (citing all relevant sources and in-depth arguments) to the SC to rebut the claims by the government.

The basis of the rebuttal is stated on pages 3 and 4:

“At the outset, it is stated that the above [government] Affidavits hide more than they reveal. The stand of the Central Government reflects a high degree of technical incompetence and a deliberate intent to obfuscate science. The claims made are also straightforwardly untrue; broad statements, without evidence, presented as fact.”

Based on the Report on Assessment for Food & Environmental Safety (AFES) submitted by the Sub-Committee of GEAC, the government argues that DMH-11 does not pose any risk to human/animal health or the environment.

In response to this, Rodrigues states:

“As such, the AFES Report is not a detailed scientific description of the biosafety of HT DMH-11. The dossier with the raw biosafety data submitted by CGMCP [Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants at the University of Delhi, which has developed DMH -11] running into thousands of pages is still concealed, for which the Petitioners were constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents which is currently pending for consideration by this Hon’ble Court.”

While Rodrigues expresses deep concern about the government’s attempts to confuse and even mislead on matters of core importance to biosafety, she is also concerned about minutes of a crucial GEAC meeting being suppressed.

The affidavit then discusses the recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests: ‘Genetically Modified Crops and its Impact on Environment’.

The report is scathing in its criticism of the regulation and risk assessment of GMOs, including GM HT mustard. It finds relevant high-level agencies as shockingly casual in their approach to GMOs in agriculture and “takes serious note of the apathy of the concerned government agencies” about the impact of GMOs on the environment (including agriculture) and on human and animal health. It finds the current regulatory framework to lack rigour, expertise, transparency and is seriously ‘conflicted’ (conflict of interest).

The Committee strongly believes that unless the bio-safety and socioeconomic desirability is evaluated by a participatory, independent and transparent process and a retrieval and accountability regime is put in place, no GM crop should be introduced in the country. The report states that with GM mustard being an herbicide tolerant GMO, there is clear evidence on the adverse impacts of such GMOs from elsewhere in the world.

The Committee argues that the government should reconsider its decision to commercialise GM crops in the country and recommends that the whole process of evaluation should be carried out by an independent agency consisting of the people of impeccable credentials in the relevant field to ensure that there is no violation of the existing regulations in this regard.

The above findings are entirely in agreement with four previous official government reports. A short description of these reports is contained in the affidavit, followed by a discussion of the history of regulatory delinquency with special reference to events surrounding GM brinjal. Regrettably and alarmingly, in HT mustard DMH-11, India faces a repeat of the disastrous regulatory history of Bt brinjal, which was eventually prevented from being commercially cultivated.

The affidavit then goes on to deconstruct each aspect of the government’s case for GM mustard. It exposes a catalogue of deceptions and misrepresentations, not least the government’s newly concocted claim that HT stands for ‘hybridisation technology’ and not ‘herbicide tolerant’, which – given the evidence set out by Rodrigues in the affidavit – appears to be a desperate attempt to backtrack given the massive dangers and impracticalities associated with HT crops in a country like India.

As in previous court documents and in various other literature, it is made clear that GM mustard does not improve yields and that there is in fact no need for it. Much is also made of the field trails that were based on invalid tests, poor science and a lack of rigour and is supported by a good degree of technical data and argument. The conclusion is there has been a “regulatory vacuum” and the SC is being misled by the government.

Rodrigues is scathing in her criticisms, not least in the proven dangers posed by the herbicide glufosinate and the contamination of India’s mustard germplasm. The government’s actions indicate:

“a disregard for India’s priceless biodiversity, a heritage that we must ferociously guard and also status as a biodiversity ‘hot spot’… lip service is paid to the certain contamination of India’s germplasm from HT DMH 11. This is outstanding issue that Petitioners emphasise repeatedly, because it is critical. If the GM ‘genie’ escapes, it cannot be bottled again.”

Rodrigues adds:

“In reality, the ruse is to obtain the authorisation of this Hon’ble Court now, to ‘creeping commercialisation’ which will be undertaken in 2 stages. This first stage, (limited to 15 kg of seed), will be the backdoor entry to eventual full commercial release sometime in the future, when there is sufficient seed produced from this first stage for full commercial planting.”

Given the conflicts of interest at work in the regulatory process, the invalid field tests, the lack of transparency, the proven lack of need, the threat to India’s mustard biodiversity and the dangers of glufosinate to health and to agriculture in a nation of small farmers using a multi-cropping system, isn’t it time for the government to come clean? Isn’t it time to follow the recommendation set out in numerous high-level reports.

The developers at Delhi University, the government and the GEAC have been found out.

No one wants GM mustard. Not farmers, not the various states. And do we hear the public speaking out in favour of it?

The game is up. The emperor has no clothes. The fraud has been exposed.

For those who have not been following the issue of GM mustard in India and its implications, additional insight may be obtained by accessing Colin’s previous articles on the matter here.

The next stage of the case involving the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is to be heard on 15 September in the Supreme Court (SC). GM mustard could be India’s first commercially cultivated GM food crop, which could very well open the floodgates to the commercialisation of various other food crops that are in the pipeline.

Lead petitioner Aruna Rodrigues is seeking a moratorium on the environmental release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the absence of comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocols in the public domain and biosafety studies conducted by independent expert bodies the results of which are made available in public domain.

The petitioners argue that the present circumstances warrant a prohibition on commercial release of DMH-11 mustard in view of the fact that:

• Mustard is a crop of origin/diversity in India
• DMH-11 and parental lines contain herbicide tolerant (HT) traits
• DMH11 has failed to satisfy the prior requirement of ‘need’ of this crop as evidenced from the results of the open field trials
• The conduct of Biosafety Research Level (‘BRL’) trials were comprehensively flawed and are invalid

In this ongoing saga, two government ‘additional affidavits’ were recently submitted to the SC, following the recommendations of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) to permit the environmental release of DMH-11 and its transgenic parental lines.

The government says that only 15 kilograms of DMH-11 would be planted in the upcoming winter season (beginning from Oct 2017) to demonstrate its yield potential and commercial viability. It has revealed plans for hybrid seed production in preparation for commercial use in approx. two years.

It also reiterates its claims that DMH-11 is not a HT crop. It claims it has been developed through ‘hybridization technology’. The government averred that DMH-11 does not pose any risk to human/animal health or the environment. Furthermore, it urged that the DMH-11 and other hybrids using this technology are necessary to improve yields in mustard in India which has been ‘stagnant around 7-8 MT for the last 20 years’.

The government has not only projected the hybrid seed production of DMH-11 as an innocuous and harmless procedure, but also revealed its predisposed mind to permit commercialisation of GE Mustard.

Exposing the government’s claims

In response to this, Aruna Rodrigues has submitted a 45-page ‘Addtional Affidavit Reply’ (citing all relevant sources and in-depth arguments) to the SC to rebut the claims by the government.

The basis of the rebuttal is stated on pages 3 and 4:

“At the outset, it is stated that the above [government] Affidavits hide more than they reveal. The stand of the Central Government reflects a high degree of technical incompetence and a deliberate intent to obfuscate science. The claims made are also straightforwardly untrue; broad statements, without evidence, presented as fact.”

Based on the Report on Assessment for Food & Environmental Safety (AFES) submitted by the Sub-Committee of GEAC, the government argues that DMH-11 does not pose any risk to human/animal health or the environment.

In response to this, Rodrigues states:

“As such, the AFES Report is not a detailed scientific description of the biosafety of HT DMH-11. The dossier with the raw biosafety data submitted by CGMCP [Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants at the University of Delhi, which has developed DMH -11] running into thousands of pages is still concealed, for which the Petitioners were constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents which is currently pending for consideration by this Hon’ble Court.”

While Rodrigues expresses deep concern about the government’s attempts to confuse and even mislead on matters of core importance to biosafety, she is also concerned about minutes of a crucial GEAC meeting being suppressed.

The affidavit then discusses the recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests: ‘Genetically Modified Crops and its Impact on Environment’.

The report is scathing in its criticism of the regulation and risk assessment of GMOs, including GM HT mustard. It finds relevant high-level agencies as shockingly casual in their approach to GMOs in agriculture and “takes serious note of the apathy of the concerned government agencies” about the impact of GMOs on the environment (including agriculture) and on human and animal health. It finds the current regulatory framework to lack rigour, expertise, transparency and is seriously ‘conflicted’ (conflict of interest).

The Committee strongly believes that unless the bio-safety and socioeconomic desirability is evaluated by a participatory, independent and transparent process and a retrieval and accountability regime is put in place, no GM crop should be introduced in the country. The report states that with GM mustard being an herbicide tolerant GMO, there is clear evidence on the adverse impacts of such GMOs from elsewhere in the world.

The Committee argues that the government should reconsider its decision to commercialise GM crops in the country and recommends that the whole process of evaluation should be carried out by an independent agency consisting of the people of impeccable credentials in the relevant field to ensure that there is no violation of the existing regulations in this regard.

The above findings are entirely in agreement with four previous official government reports. A short description of these reports is contained in the affidavit, followed by a discussion of the history of regulatory delinquency with special reference to events surrounding GM brinjal. Regrettably and alarmingly, in HT mustard DMH-11, India faces a repeat of the disastrous regulatory history of Bt brinjal, which was eventually prevented from being commercially cultivated.

The affidavit then goes on to deconstruct each aspect of the government’s case for GM mustard. It exposes a catalogue of deceptions and misrepresentations, not least the government’s newly concocted claim that HT stands for ‘hybridisation technology’ and not ‘herbicide tolerant’, which – given the evidence set out by Rodrigues in the affidavit – appears to be a desperate attempt to backtrack given the massive dangers and impracticalities associated with HT crops in a country like India.

As in previous court documents and in various other literature, it is made clear that GM mustard does not improve yields and that there is in fact no need for it. Much is also made of the field trails that were based on invalid tests, poor science and a lack of rigour and is supported by a good degree of technical data and argument. The conclusion is there has been a “regulatory vacuum” and the SC is being misled by the government.

Rodrigues is scathing in her criticisms, not least in the proven dangers posed by the herbicide glufosinate and the contamination of India’s mustard germplasm. The government’s actions indicate:

“a disregard for India’s priceless biodiversity, a heritage that we must ferociously guard and also status as a biodiversity ‘hot spot’… lip service is paid to the certain contamination of India’s germplasm from HT DMH 11. This is outstanding issue that Petitioners emphasise repeatedly, because it is critical. If the GM ‘genie’ escapes, it cannot be bottled again.”

Rodrigues adds:

“In reality, the ruse is to obtain the authorisation of this Hon’ble Court now, to ‘creeping commercialisation’ which will be undertaken in 2 stages. This first stage, (limited to 15 kg of seed), will be the backdoor entry to eventual full commercial release sometime in the future, when there is sufficient seed produced from this first stage for full commercial planting.”

Given the conflicts of interest at work in the regulatory process, the invalid field tests, the lack of transparency, the proven lack of need, the threat to India’s mustard biodiversity and the dangers of glufosinate to health and to agriculture in a nation of small farmers using a multi-cropping system, isn’t it time for the government to come clean? Isn’t it time to follow the recommendation set out in numerous high-level reports.

The developers at Delhi University, the government and the GEAC have been found out.

No one wants GM mustard. Not farmers, not the various states. And do we hear the public speaking out in favour of it?

The game is up. The emperor has no clothes. The fraud has been exposed.

For those who have not been following the issue of GM mustard in India and its implications, additional insight may be obtained by accessing Colin’s previous articles on the matter here.

Featured image: Togo President Faure Gnassingbe with Israeli PM Netanyahu

A controversial gathering which was scheduled to be held in the West African state of Togo has been called off amid a burgeoning movement aimed at the removal of a French-backed political dynasty.

Called the Israel-Africa Summit, the event was obviously designed to enhance the political and economic role of Tel Aviv on the continent.

Absent of any serious attempts to resolve the Palestinian question related their right to self-determination and nationhood along with the ongoing occupation of the Golan Heights in Syria, the state of Israel is seeking to undermine any appearance of anti-imperialist sentiments among African leaders. Reversing developments in years pass when progressive and moderate African governments gave diplomatic and material support to the anti-Zionist movement in Palestine and surrounding countries, Israel is making a bold offensive to strengthen relations with African Union (AU) member-states.

The summit was to have taken place in October in Lome the capital. Several leaders in Africa had already objected to the meeting and said they would not attend.

News of the postponement came from the Israeli Foreign Ministry which noted that the President of Togo would not be in a position to hold the summit at this time. Mass demonstrations have erupted in Togo demanding the removal of the administration of President Faure Gnassingbe who has ruled the country since his father’s death, Gnassingbe Eyadema, in 2005. The elder Gnassingbe seized power in a military coup in 1967. Therefore, the country has been ruled by one family for 50 years.

According to an article published by the Associated Press on September 11, it conveys:

“In a statement Monday (Sept. 11), the ministry said the decision had come at the request of Togo’s president, Faure Gnassingbe, after consultations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It said talks would continue ‘to guarantee the full success of the summit.’ The statement gave no reason for the decision. But Togo has been experiencing unrest in recent days, with thousands of protesters demanding presidential term limits amid anger over the 50-year rule of the Gnassingbe family.”

This announcement represents a setback in Israeli foreign policy towards Africa. The convening of such a summit on the continent would represent a major departure from the traditions of solidarity with the struggling peoples of the world particularly in the Middle East.

Largely stemming from the failed British, French and Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 in the aftermath of the nationalization of the Suez Canal by the-then President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the newly-emerging African states began to look critically at Tel Aviv. Just over a decade later during the so-called “Six Day War” of June 1967 between Egypt, Syria and Jordan against the Israeli state, where Tel Aviv more than doubled its size by seizing control of the Sanai in Egypt right up to the Suez Canal, while at the same time occupying the Golan Heights of Syria and the taking of the West Bank previously under Jordanian authority, most African states severed diplomatic relations with Israel.

Six years later in 1973, Egypt under President Anwar Sadat launched an offensive taking back vast stretches of the Sinai from Israeli control, lead to the escalation of tensions even further. Two years later in 1975, the United Nations General Assembly voted to declare that “Zionism is racism”, intensifying the isolation of Tel Aviv. Eventually in 1991, the resolution against Israel was revoked by the same UN General Assembly.

The London-based Independent newspaper noted that in the current situation:

“A number of African countries were reportedly threatening to boycott the October 23-27 event, in protest at Israel’s conduct in the Palestinian conflict. Morocco’s King Mohamed VI stayed away from a summit of the West African regional bloc ECOWAS in Liberia in June, because Netanyahu was invited. “

Togolese Masses Take to the Streets in Early September

Perhaps the most significant factor in the decision to postpone the summit was the unrelenting mobilizations by opposition parties and coalitions in Togo aimed at the resignation of the current administration of Gnassingbe. During August 19-20, tens of thousands marched and rallied in defiance of the national government.

Reports indicated that as many as 7 people were killed by police and military forces inside the country. Many others were arrested and 15 members of a leading opposition group, the Pan-African National Party (PNP), were sentenced to prison terms.

A new round of mass demonstrations against the Gnassingbe administration erupted on September 6-7. The government in response reportedly shutdown internet connectivity preventing the various opposition groups from communicating among themselves as well as limiting access to information related to developments inside the country and internationally.

Togo opposition on the march for removal of neo-colonial regime in Lome

Thousands of Togolese marched into the central area of Lome on September 7 facing down the security forces. Later police fired teargas to disperse the crowd arresting some 80 people.

Al Jazeera described the September 7 demonstrations emphasizing that:

“The scale of this week’s protests, which the opposition said were attended by hundreds of thousands of people, represented the biggest challenge to Gnassingbe’s rule since the aftermath of his ascension to power in 2005. US-based company Dyn, which monitors the internet, said traffic dropped off at 09:00 GMT in what critics said was a move by the government to suppress protests as other African governments have done. Residents said that text messages had also been blocked. The communications minister could not immediately be reached for comment on the cuts.”

Those seeking to remain informed about the mass demonstrations of September 6-7 were forced to travel to the border between Togo and Ghana in order to have access to internet services. Officials within the Gnassingbe regime admitted that internet services were blocked citing concerns of threats to national security.

Demonstrators told members of the press they wanted a return to the reform constitution enacted in 1992. This document limits the existing administrations from remaining in office for more than two terms.

Nonetheless, after the ascendancy of the current president, amendments were made which allowed the perpetuation of the Gnassingbe family rule. Efforts aimed at reform have been met with fierce repression from the government.

Understanding the mounting mass pressure, members of parliament have announced the need for a bill to institute reforms. Nonetheless, opposition figures are quite skeptical of such a move at this time.

Coalition Broadens Through the Emergence of PNP

These recent demonstrations have reached a critical point with the emergence of the Pan African National Party (PNP) leader Tikpi Atchadam, 50, as a central figure in the mass mobilizations over the last month. The party has reached out to form a broader alliance with the Combat for Political Change (CAP 2015) which brought together opposition groups in over the last few years.

PNP was formed in 2014 and has no representation in parliament. Atchadam is from the northern region of Togo as is the Gnassingbe family. The willingness of the various opposition parties to work together has created a dynamic movement committed to the toppling of the existing administration.

Atchadam has never before run for president. Parliamentary opposition leader of the National Alliance for Change (ANC), Jean-Pierre Fabre, 65, has also formed a coalition with the PNP in the interests of political transformation.

Fabre has run unsuccessfully for president on several occasions. The ANC leader repeatedly charged that the elections were rigged and not representative of the Togolese political will.

In response to the growing demonstration against President Gnassingbe, members of his ruling Rally for the Togolese People (RPT) have also staged demonstrations in support of the government. At present President Gnassingbe is chair of the regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) therefore hampering the capacity of the organization to effectively address the current political impasse inside the country.

All images in this article are from the author.

Alessandro Bianchi: The geographic location of Afghanistan has always occupied a central role. The April peace talks between Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Russia and China seemed to have put an end to the persistent and dominant American presence in the country. What’s your opinion?

Andre Vltchek: What you have mentioned is extremely important, but I’m not ready to celebrate, yet. This could be, at least in theory, the first step towards the end of one of the most destructive and brutal occupations in NATO’s history, or in what the US mainstream press likes to describe as “the longest American war.”

Let us also not call it only the “American presence”. I know some Europeans lately love to portray themselves as some kind of victims, but they are definitely not. Europe is at the core of this entire global nightmare. And the US is nothing else other than its creation: it is Europe’s offspring. In many ways, the United States is Europe.

The UK is now well behind this horror through which Afghanistan is being forced to go through, at least theoretically; a sadistic revenge for all former British defeats in the country. The UK is responsible for more massacres worldwide than any other country on Earth. And now it is shaping the US and in fact the entire Western imperialism, ideologically. Its Machiavellianism, its propaganda machine is second to none.

What I can confirm from my first-hand experience is that by now the people of Afghanistan have had truly enough of this Western imperialist barbarism. They are exhausted after 16 years of the horror invasion. They dislike the West; mistrust the West… But most of them are silent, because they are constantly being frightened into submission. And also remember: collaboration with the Western occupation forces is now the greatest ‘business’ in the country. Afghan diplomats, many politicians, countless military commanders, Western-funded NGOs, even thousands of educators, are all serving the occupiers. Billions of dollars are being made from such shameful collaboration.It is all one huge business, and the mafia of servile Afghan ‘journalists’, diplomats, governors and ‘educators’ will never leave their lucrative positions voluntarily.

Western colonialism corrupts! It corrupts one generation after another in all conquered, occupied countries.

Afghans who are pure, Afghans who are proud, true patriots with beautiful hearts (and there are still many of such people in this country that became one of my favorite places on Earth) have presently no power, no say.

Fortunately, even the elites are now realizing that there is no way forward under the present regime, and under the present foreign rule.

In Kabul and in the provinces, people are beginning to look towards Russia, China, but also Iran, even India. Despite its terrible past track record in this part of the world, even Pakistan cannot be ignored, anymore. Anything is better than NATO.

AB: Like in other parts of the world, the presence of American troops does not fully explain the long-term goals of military planners. Afghanistan in some respects resembles a similar situation to Southeast Asia. In South Korea, the American presence has persisted since 1950, and with it the destabilization of the Korean peninsula. The American surge will not change the delicate balance negotiated between the parties back in April and it will not affect the efforts of Moscow and Beijing to stabilize the country. How do you define the US presence today in Afghanistan?

AV: I define it as inhuman, barbaric and thoroughly racist. And I’m not talking about the US presence only, but also about the European presence, particularly the British one.

There could be absolutely no doubts regarding how deep once-socialist Afghanistan has sank under the NATO cruelty. It is enough to go even to the sites of the UNDP or the WHO and it all there, in details: Afghanistan is now the least ‘developed’ (using HDI criteria) country in Asia. Afghan people have the lowest life expectancy on their continent.

The US alone claims that it has managed to spend, since the invasion in 2001, between 750 billion and 1.2 trillion dollars. That’s huge, an astronomical amount, even bigger than the entire Marshall Plan after WWII (adjusted to today’s dollar)! But has it been spent to help the Afghan people? Of course not! It has gone mainly into corrupting of ‘elites’ and their offspring, into the military, into the salaries of foreign contractors. Huge military bases were built; some were at some point decommissioned, others were moved somewhere else. Airports were constructed – all of them military ones. Private Western security firms are having a ball. I once calculated that if all that money were to be equally divided between all Afghans, the country would have had a much higher income per capita than relatively affluent Malaysia, for 16 consecutive years!

What the West has done to Afghanistan is insane! It is Orwell meeting Huxley, and all mixed with the worst nightmares of painters like George Grosz and Otto Dix.

Old trolley bus lines built by the former Czechoslovakia are gone; only stumps are left. But so much is still surviving. Soviet apartment buildings, so-called Makroyans, are still standing and flats there are in great demand to date. Water ducts in the countryside were built by Soviet Union, and so were irrigation canals around Jalalabad and elsewhere. India built dams. China constructed public medical facilities. What did the West create? Nothing else other than total misery, armed conflicts and above all–countless military barracks, tall concrete walls and fences, the drug trade, intellectual prostitution and as always, dark and complete nihilism!

In 2007, around 700 Afghan civilians were killed by Western airstrikes alone, a great increase even when compared with 2006.

Georgian military contractors who are working for the US occupation army recently told me: US have total spite for Afghan people. They even destroy unused food at its military bases, instead of giving it to starving children.

People of Afghanistan know perfectly well who are their friends, and who are enemies.

AB: The world is changing, and more and more fruitful efforts to replace the chaos wrought by US policies can be seen. The road to economic prosperity and a re-established unity among the Afghan people is still a work in progress, but once the country manages to establish its independence, Washington will have a hard time dictating conditions. Will countries like Russia, China and India be able to prevent a dangerous escalation in Afghanistan?

AV: Many people in Afghanistan are actually dreaming about true independence, and most of them remember with great love, all the kindness and internationalism given to them by the Soviet people. Unlike the Westerners, the Soviets came here first as teachers, doctors, nurses and engineers. They shared with the locals all that they had. They lived among them. They never hid behind fences. To date, in Afghanistan, you say you are Russian, and dozens of people will embrace you, invite you to their homes. It is all in stark contrast to the Western propaganda, which says that Afghans dislike Russians!

When it comes to Russia and China, yes, both countries acting in concert would be able to bring economic prosperity and social justice to Afghanistan. I’m not so sure about India, which is, until now, clearly sitting on two chairs, but definitely China and Russia are ready and able to help.

The problem is that Afghanistan is still very far from any sort of independence. The West has occupied it for 16 years, that’s terrible enough. But the country has also been sacrificed for the even more sinister designs of the US and NATO, for much longer than that: Afghanistan has been, for decades, a training ground for the pro-western jihadi cadres, starting with Al-Qaeda/Mujahedeen (during the ‘Soviet War’ and the war against Afghan socialism). Now the Taliban is ruining the country, but also, increasingly, ISIS are murdering all in sight here. Recently, ISIS have been arriving from Syria and Lebanon, where they are in the process of being defeated by the Syrian army, by the Russians, but also by the Lebanese forces and Hezbollah. The ISIS was, as is well known, created by the West and its allies in the Gulf.

This is essential to understand: two countries that the West wants to fully destabilize are Russia and China. In both of them, Islamist fundamentalists have been fighting and bringing horrible damage. The West is behind all this. And it is using and sacrificing Afghanistan which is absolutely perfect for the Western imperialist designs due to its geographical location, but also because it is now fully destabilized and in a state of chaos. In Afghanistan, NATO is maintaining ‘perpetual conflict’. Jihadi cadres can be easily hardened there, and then they can be ‘exported’; to go and fight somewhere in Northwest China or in the Central Asian parts of Russia.

The destruction of Afghanistan is actually a well-planned genocidal war of the West against the Afghan people. But the country is also a training ground for jihadists who will eventually be sent to fight against Russia and China.

AB: While the United States exhales the last breaths as a declining global power, no longer able to impose its will, it lashes out in pointless acts like lobbing 60 cruise missiles at Syria or sending 4,000 troops to Afghanistan. Such acts do not change anything on the ground or modify the balance of forces in Washington’s favor. They do, however, have a strong impact on further reducing whatever confidence remains in the US, closing the door to opportunities for dialogue and cooperation that might have otherwise got on the table.

AV: Here I have to strongly disagree. I’m almost certain that the West in general, and the United States in particular, are clearly aware of what they are doing. The US has some of the most sinister colonial powers as its advisers, particularly the United Kingdom.

The US will not simply go down the drain without a great fight, and don’t ever think that Europe would either. These two parts of the world were built on the great plunder of the planet. They still are. They cannot sustain themselves just from the fruits of their brains and labor. They are perpetual thieves. The US can never be separated from Europe. The US is just one huge branch growing from an appalling trunk, from the tree of European colonialism, imperialism and racism.

Whatever the US, Europe and NATO are presently doing is brilliantly planned. Never under-estimate them! It is all brutal, sinister and murderous planning, but from a strictly strategic point of view, it is truly brilliant!

And they will never go away on their own! They will have to be fought and defeated. Otherwise they are here to stay: in Afghanistan, in Syria, or anywhere else.

AB: What is the role of Italian troops that you have seen in your last visit to Afghanistan?

Italian troops took over ancient Citadel in Herat City (Source: Andre Vltchek)

AV: It is a usual cocktail consisting of what Italian fascism has been made of throughout its colonialist, fascist and NATO eras: a medley of cruelty, hypocrisy, as well as some great hope in Rome that Italy could finally become a competent and ‘respected’ occupier… I saw the Italian troops in Herat… They occupied an ancient citadel of the city, jumping like members of some second-rate ballet troupe all around, just because some high-ranking Italian officer was bringing his family to visit the site. It was all tremendously embarrassing… I still have some photos from that ‘event’. But the best thing about Italians as occupiers is that they can hardly be taken seriously; they are disorganized, chaotic, and hedonistic even during war.

I actually love to see them in such places like Afghanistan, because they do very little damage. They are true showoffs. The French, Brits, and the US – they are efficient and brutal, true killing machines. Italians are still better at making movies, writing poetry and cooking, than murdering locals in occupied foreign countries.

*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

Featured image: Colin Kaepernick (Source: ESPN)

“The spectacle is the nightmare of imprisoned modern society which ultimately expresses nothing more than its desire to sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of sleep.” – Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

It is generally accepted that sports, especially spectator sports, serve many social purposes, good and bad, and that they function to distract people from the cares and worries of everyday life, or the “real world.” No doubt this is true. The etymology of the word sport, derived as it is from the word “disport” – divert, amuse, carry away – tells us that.  But often a distraction can also be a reminder, even when that reminder remains shrouded in unconsciousness or forgotten in the moment. Sometimes, however, the reminder can be linked to memories that bring a startling clarity to the present.

Two recent sports news items have reminded me of incidents from my own athletic past. And those memories in turn have brought my reflections back to the current news regarding the failure of any National Football League (NFL) team to sign quarterback Colin Kaepernick to a contract, and the recent boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor.

Kaepernick’s case is well-known and much discussed. He took a valiant and principled stand last football season by taking a knee during the national anthem to protest the violent treatment of black Americans by the police and American society in general. History was on his side, unless one was a clear-cut white racist and ignorant of American history. But as a terrific football player and a well-known athlete, his stand was unusual in the world of sports where political protest is very rare and not being reminded of the “real” world is the key to success. The NFL, in particular, is a very conservative organization, long infused with a super patriotic ethos wrapped in the American flag and the song that celebrates it, and Kaepernick’s protest was a diversion from the diverting spectacle on the field and not welcomed by NFL owners, to put it mildly.

Source: notey.com

So as of this writing, Kaepernick, a very good football player who would clearly strengthen an NFL team, remains without a job. That this is because he lacks talent is ridiculous. While pressure against the NFL from multiple media and organizational sources is growing to reverse this situation, even well-meaning writers have implicitly used racist language to describe the situation by saying that Kaepernick is being blackballed. Ironic as it is, our language is filled with such subtle reminders of the white mindset that equates white with good and black with bad.

But there is a deeper irony involved, and language once again reveals it.

First, however, let me briefly tell you of my memories, not because the details are important in themselves, but because they are examples of how we bring to our present perspectives past experiences that can both help to clarify and obfuscate current events. The saying “where you’re coming from” contains truth; our past experiences deeply influence how we see the present.

When I was 19-20 years old, a senior in high school and a Division I college freshman on an athletic scholarship, I was involved in two incidents involving sports and violence. The sport was basketball, not football or boxing, and the violence was minimal, but both are etched in my memory. As a young man, I was rarely involved in fighting, but when I felt abused and disrespected, my Irish temper got the best of me and I would physically defend myself. Otherwise, I was a normal young athlete, fueled by the competitive nature of high-level sports and testosterone. But these incidents taught me that the propensity for violence is in us all, and that certain situations and social arrangements can inflame and promote it, especially when you are most unaware and naïve.

But what do these memories have to do with the news about Kaepernick and Mayweather/McGregor? What I saw in both sports stories was violence; one quite obvious with boxing, the other involving Kaepernick, less so.

I realized that violence has many faces, whether it be minor or major, fisticuffs or “blitzes,” face-to-face or helmet-to-helmet, physical or verbal, racial or political, institutional or personal, etc. It’s largest and most savage one is war, and endless war and preparations for war are the large canvas within which the others lie. Sometimes remembering one’s individual inclinations toward violence can help one see the larger picture.

As usual, the Unites States is currently waging multiple wars, and is fomenting many others, including a nuclear one. Most of the victims of U.S. violence are considered “other,” the expendable people, as were slaves, Native Americans, and other people of color. Nothing has changed since that other heroic black American dissenter said that America is “the greatest purveyor of violence on earth.” And we know that Martin Luther King was murdered by those violent U.S. government forces he criticized in his opposition to war, racial inequality, and economic injustice for all Americans.

I am not equating Kaepernick with MLK, but his protest follows in the King tradition and that of other black athletes who have taken political stands: Mohammed Ali, Tommy Smith, John Carlos, et al. All suffered for their courageous positions.

Of course, Colin Kaepernick has a right to play football, just as Ali had the right to beat people up in the ring. Yet boxing, despite the Mayweather/McGregor extravaganza, has generally been recognized for the brutal “sport” it is, and has grown less popular over the years, perhaps in part because of Ali’s “pugilistic brain syndrome.” Not football.  It has grown to become America’s number one sport, despite the growing evidence of what may be called “football brain syndrome,” and all the violence and other crippling injuries suffered by former players, revealed as far back as 1970 when Dave Meggyesy, a former NFL linebacker, published Out of Their League, his expose of the dehumanizing aspects of football.

But the unspoken truth in the Kaepernick story is that football is the war sport par excellence, extremely violent, and deeply tied to the spectacle of cruelty that dominates American society today and that has caused so much suffering for black people and other people of color for centuries. In the 1960s, Brazilian television, in an effort to distinguish football (soccer) from American football, aptly termed it “military football.” And while it, like other sports, has been an avenue to wealth and “success” for some black Americans (a tiny minority), its war-like structure and violent nature is noted with a nod and a wink. Heck, it’s fun to play and exciting to watch, and is just a colorful spectacle that we can’t do without.

That it’s a conditioning agent for the love of war and violent aggression is usually passed over. Its language, like all good linguistic mind control, becomes powerfully invisible. Colin Kaepernick, like all quarterbacks, is the field general who throws bombs to flankers as he tries to avoid the blitz. Each team defends and conquers the enemy’s territory, pushing its opponent back through frontal assaults and pounding the enemy’s line. This is mixed with deceptive formations and aerial assaults behind the opponent’s line. When none of this works and the enemy goes on the offensive, a different platoon is brought in to defend one’s territory. One’s front line must then defend against a frontal assault and hit back hard. The analogies are everywhere, and as with many aspects of “everywhere,” what’s everywhere is nowhere – its familiarity making it invisible and therefore all the more powerful.

In a society of the spectacle, football is the most spectacular and entertaining mass hypnotic induction into the love of violence that we have. Yes, Mayweather and McGregor beating the shit out of each other satisfies the blood lust of gamblers and a much smaller audience, but boxing is small peanuts compared to football. Most American parents wouldn’t bring their children to a boxing match, but football is deeply ingrained in the American psyche and structured into the fabric of our lives from youth onwards, concussions and violence be damned. It is a microcosm of our militaristic, war-loving culture. Our love of violence disguised as fun.

As an American man, I understand its appeal. I am sometimes drawn in myself, but against my better nature, which embraces MLK’s non-violent philosophy. I appreciate the great athletic prowess of football players, and know that it is enjoyable and a way to recognition for many, and for a smaller number a scholarship to college, and, for even less, a lucrative job in the NFL. But as an opponent of American militarism, I find its violent ethos and the way it disfigures the bodies and minds of participants and spectators alike to be appalling. It functions as an arm of the Pentagon and the growing militarization of the country’s police departments.

As for Conor McGregor, the slum boy from south Dublin, they say he is an artist, a mixed “martial arts artist.” That violence is an art is good to know. I have been living in a bubble, thinking that art was a counterbalance to violence. When I grew out of my adolescent readiness to defend my dignity with my fists and grew into art, I had hoped that the world would grow up with me. No luck. No luck of the Irish. Conor should read our Irish ancestor, the great poet William Butler Yeats, and take the money and run.

“Too long a sacrifice/Can make a stone of the heart.”

So too Colin Kaepernick, whom I greatly admire for his courage to take an ethical stand. He deserves to be offered a job by an NFL team. If he is, I hope he turns it down, and speaks out on the propagandistic nature of the sport that made him famous, on its school of violence and its art of war. In doing that, he would be carrying on the legacy of MLK, Malcom X, Mohammed Ali, and other black leaders who said violence must stop now, war must stop, the violence on people of color must stop, and let it begin with me.

He would be disclosing the taboo truth of an American sporting distraction that does violence to its participants while it brainwashes its fans into the martial spirit. He would be waking an awful lot of people up from the slumber of the spectacle of cruelty that has this country in its grip.

Many people would take a knee in gratitude.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. A former college basketball player, he teaches the sociology of sports, and writes on a wide range of topics.  His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/