Libia: Metáfora de la sinrazón

February 13th, 2017 by Guadi Calvo

Nadie nunca podrá justificar, de ninguna manera, la operación de la OTAN, con el aval jurídico de Naciones Unidas, para la destrucción de Libia. Como lo hemos dicho aquí infinidad de veces, el país con el más alto estándar de calidad de vida de África, y muy por encima al de muchas naciones europeas. Quizás se cifre en esa realidad la verdadera razón para haber sometido al pueblo y la patria del Coronel Mohammed Gadaffi, al martirio iniciado en los primeros meses de 2011 y que hasta hoy no ha cesado.

Las barbarie a la que fue sometida Libia, ha generado no solo la destrucción del Estado, sino la organización de un número indeterminado de bandas armadas, casi la totalidad de ellas, financiadas y abastecidas por las mismas potencias perpetradoras de la “Primavera Árabe”: Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y Francia, junto a las monarquías wahabitas de Arabia Saudita, Emiratos Árabes, y Qatar.

El propio desgobierno del país es lo que ha permitido que las organizaciones de traficantes de personas y los carteles de la droga conviertan las extensas costas libias a poco menos de 400 kilómetros de Europa, en un trampolín para su “mercadería” rumbo a Europa.

La situación se ha agravado mucho más a partir del 20 marzo de 2016, fecha en que comenzó a funcionar el acuerdo ente la Unión Europea y Turquía, para que esta última nación impida el tránsito de refugiados rumbo a Europa.

Esta situación obligó a los tratantes de personas a disponer nuevas rutas lo que dio como resultado que los puertos libios, fundamentalmente el de Misrata, sea el lugar indicado para seguir con el “negocio”.

Si bien Libia, ha sido el punto elegido por los subsaharianos desde la vigencia del acuerdo con Turquía, se ha incrementado, fundamentalmente, el número de sirios, iraquíes y afganos, que pugna por llegar a Europa desde Libia.

El año pasado fue por esta vía por donde llegaron más refugiados a Europa, se calcula oficialmente en unos 180 mil. Mientras fueron 5 mil los que terminaron ahogados en el Mediterráneo, tras el naufragio de las embarcaciones que los llevaban.

En lo que va de 2017, la cifra de ahogados alcanza a 300. Según fuentes “responsables” en las primeras dos semanas del año, casi 3 mil refugiados llegaron a desde las costas libias, un número sugestivamente menor frente a los 23.664 de la primera quincena de 2016, a la vez que el número de muertos fue menos “solo” 90.

Es por este motivo que los 28 países miembros de la Unión Europea, reunidos el pasado 3 de febrero en La Valeta, Malta, decidieron implementar un plan de diez puntos para frenar la migración, teniendo en la cooperación con Libia, el eje fundamental de ese acuerdo. Lo que no se aclara es quién de todos los poderes en pugna dentro del país, cuenta con el suficiente predicamento para implementarlo.

El plan prevé retener a los inmigrantes, al modo que se hace con Turquía, con la diferencia que su presidente Recep Erdogán tiene el poder suficiente para cumplirlo o dejarlo de cumplir según sus necesidades de presión.

El plan incluye la formación y el equipamiento de una Guardia Costera libia, para controlar las acciones de las bandas de traficantes y de paso evitar que los salvamentos sean realizados por naves europeas, lo que de hecho los obliga a darles cobijo a los rescatados.

Todos saben que retener el casi al millón de refugiados, tanto libios, subsaharianos, como asiáticos, que esperan en las inmediaciones de Misrata, una plaza en alguna de las muchas y precarias embarcaciones que salen prácticamente a diario rumbo a Italia, es armar literalmente una bomba de tiempo, con muy poco tiempo, por otra parte.

Quienes están a la espera de esas plazas no lo hacen justamente en las mejores condiciones.

Los refugiados, más allá de las traumáticas historias personales, ya que quien no huye del hambre, huye de la guerra, deben sobrevivir en los improvisados campamentos, que están siempre abarrotados, lo que obliga a las personas a vivir en condiciones infrahumanas, casi sin lugar para extenderse en el piso para dormir, por lo que suelen hacerlos sentados y en muchos casos uno encima de otro. El número refugiados con alto grado de desnutrición crece de manera diaria. A lo que hay que sumarle todo tipo de enfermedades y el permanente acoso de las “autoridades”.

Las violaciones, la tortura, en más de una oportunidad la muerte y el saqueo de sus  pocas pertenencias es el pan diario de los refugiados.

La Unión Europea desde el último acuerdo pretende devolver a los refugiados que han logrado alcanzar territorio europeo, a estos infiernos. Claro, ningún funcionario europeo está dispuesto a reconocer la responsabilidad del continente de haber creado este estado de cosas.

Tras la reunión de Malta se ha acordado disponer de unos 130 millones de euros, para cerrar la ruta a través del Mediterráneo medio, nada a comparación de los 6 mil millones que la U.E. le entregó al Sultán Erdogan.

Túnez en la mira

A Libia, no le falta ningún ingrediente como para no considerarla un estado fallido, quizás únicamente comparable con Somalia, por lo que queda claro entonces que este nuevo acuerdo europeo, solo es una fachada, para que bandas de mercenarios en el rol de “prefectura libia”, armada por la UE, se ponga a perseguir a quienes sin ninguna duda eran sus socios en el tráfico de personas, hasta hace pocas semanas o días quizás. No existe una autoridad libia, que pueda controlar que esto no termine en un maridaje entre traficantes y prefectos, para que se puedan seguir realizando buenos negocios.

Además es imposible obviar que, si bien más acotadas, las milicias del Daesh, siguen teniendo presencia en el país, y justamente muy cerca de la costa, hasta hace pocas semanas una de las grandes fuentes de ingresos de la organización wahabita, era justamente el tráfico de personas, rumbo a Italia, lo que sin duda ha sido una buena pantalla para infiltrar sus combatientes entre los contingentes de refugiados.

La administración Obama, hasta el último día de su mandato, bombardeó posiciones del Daesh, en las cercanías de Sirte, su capital en Libia, como parte de la operación Odyssey Lightning, en que lanzaron entre agosto y diciembre de 2016, 495 ataques aéreos en las cercanías de Sirte, irónicamente el pueblo natal del coronel Gadaffi.

Estos ataques están obligando a que los hombres del califa Ibrahim, comiencen a abandonar sus posiciones fijas y busquen expandirse por los inmensos territorios sin control ninguno del sur del país y filtrar, como ya está sucediendo hacia el Chad, Níger y Argelia.

De ese éxodo de terroristas que operan en Libia a diferentes países fronterizos es importante señalar la delicada situación de Túnez. Según Naciones Unidas cerca de 5500 tunecinos, se habrían sumado al Daesh desde su aparición en 2014. Según las autoridades tunecinas cerca de 800 ya habrían regresado al país, también hay que recordar que tanto los atentados del 14 de julio en Niza como al mercado navideño de Berlín, fueron protagonizados por tunecinos.

En Túnez, además de ser la cuna de la “Primavera Árabe” se produjeron dos resonante ataque el primero fue al Museo Nacional de Bardo en marzo de 2015, que dejó 25 muertos y 50 heridos y poco después en junio del mismo años se produjo el segundo ataque en el balneario de Susa, por acción de un lobo solitario, que dejó 39 muertos y 36 heridos.

La situación obligó al gobierno tunecino a anunciar a principios de 2016, la construcción de un muro, con financiación alemana y estadounidense, en la frontera libia de 459 kilómetros que constituiría por una empalizada de arena de 250 kilómetros y una fosa de dos metros de profundidad. Además de vigilancia electrónica, y la asistencia de helicópteros artillados.

Un detallado informe sobre el perfil de los terroristas tunecinos dice que el 90% son menores de 40 años, el 7% son solteros y el 32% procede de ámbitos urbanos.

El 4% son universitarios y la gran mayoría se ha radicalizado en mezquitas y con la lectura de textos wahabitas. Otra de las razones para la radicalizón es la económica a consecuencia de la falta de trabajo.

Los barrios periféricos de la capital tunecina, que contiene barriadas como la de Ettadhamen, con más de medio millón de habitantes, el integrismo controlan un número importante de mezquitas que instigan a la radicalización.

La situación en el Magreb, debido a la sinrazón occidental del ataque a Libia ha dejado abierta esa herida que no cerrará durante muchos, muchos años y no dejará de producir más muertes.

Guadi Calvo

Guadi Calvo: Escritor y periodista argentino, analista internacional especializado en África, Medio Oriente y Asia Central.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Libia: Metáfora de la sinrazón

México – Obras son amores y no buenos discursos

February 13th, 2017 by Mouris Salloum George

No se puede invocar y convocar a la unidad nacional como mera ocurrencia coyuntural. Si todo acto histórico se funda en ese imperativo -el de la unión-, preciso es que le demos una mirada al pasado remoto y al pasado inmediato.

De la Historia con mayúscula, saquemos rendimientos. Ahora, hasta los antijuaristas se apropian de la frase del Benemérito: “Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, El respeto al derecho ajeno, es la paz”.

Benito Juárez fue el restaurador de la República. Pero antes de lograrlo, supo leer juiciosamente en los signos de los tiempos. En 1863 -leerlo bien-, tuvo el acierto de nombrar a don Matías Romero, Enviado Extraordinario y Plenipotenciario ante el gobierno de Washington.

El presidente estadunidense era entonces, nada más, pero nada menos, Abraham Lincoln, quien quince años antes, como representante ante el Congreso, había condenado la guerra injusta; guerra de despojo, de los Estados Unidos contra México.

En sus conversaciones con Romero (con quien antes había convivido en la Suprema Corte de Justicia), le planteó esta reflexión: No esperemos que otros hagan por México lo que nos corresponde hacer (a nosotros mismos). ¿No era acaso, la pertinente posición del conductor de un pueblo soberano?

Así se restauró la República. Cambio de página para leer en el pasado inmediato y situarnos ante el llamado a la unidad nacional.

Un México con hambre y sed de justicia

Aun antes de concluir el periodo de los regímenes posrevolucionarios, particularmente el discurso sociológico hablaba de Dos Méxicos: El de la abundancia acaparada y el de la indigencia “democratizada”.

Al implantarse el depredador modelo neoliberal, desde fuera del gobierno el diagnóstico reveló la polarización socioeconómica de los mexicanos.

Dentro de cuatro semanas, el PRI debe recordar el dolido mensaje de su –después- asesinado candidato presidencial, Luis Donaldo Colosio, en un sumario de su campaña en 1994: “Veo un México con hambre y sed de justicia”.

Antes de concluir la presidencia panista en 2012, el gobierno del Humanismo político reconocía que el tejido social se encuentra roto.

Las profundas estructuras de la desigualdad

En meses, en semanas recientes, la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Cepal/ONU), en sus evaluaciones sobre México, acusa que la injusta distribución de la riqueza nacional incide en la desigualdad social. (Los economistas progresistas dicen que se han  profundizado las estructuras de la desigualdad).

Instituciones editoriales extranjeras que le dan seguimiento a la distribución  de la riqueza en el mundo, revelan que el producto nacional mexicano tiene, a lo mucho, 37 individuos o grupos empresariales privilegiados, que se alzan con el santo y la limosna.

Ahora que se engrasan tantos ejes retóricos para mover la desvencijada carreta mexicana, no resulta ocioso recomendar un ajuste de cuentas con el pasado inmediato, y, entonces sí, seguramente los mexicanos todos se unirán, como lo aconseja el principio de La tregua de Dios ante el enemigo común, en solidaridad y patriotismo. Obras son amores y no buenos discursos. Vale.

Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on México – Obras son amores y no buenos discursos

EE.UU.-México: Los costos de una anexión irreflexiva

February 13th, 2017 by Mouris Salloum George

Desde hace al menos tres décadas, investigaciones académicas domésticas han concluido que la emigración desde México hacia los Estados Unidos  constituye una válvula de escape al descomunal problema del desempleo en nuestro país.

De manera recurrente, en las anuales Reuniones Parlamentarias México-Estados Unidos y en los grupos administrativos de alto nivel de ambos gobiernos, legisladores y funcionarios norteamericanos han insistido en que México debe hacerse cargo ya de resolver sus crisis económicas para asegurar la permanencia de  trabajadores,  empleados y profesionales en territorio nacional.

Aunque no defendieron en su momento el libre tránsito de mano de obra en las negociaciones del Tratado de Libre Comercio México-Estados Unidos-Canadá (ahora TLCAN) firmado finalmente en 1993, sus negociadores (algunos de los cuales forman parte del actual equipo de gobierno) y publicistas de dicho instrumento, han insistido e insisten en que uno de los beneficios para los mexicanos es la creación de nuevos empleos.

Estudios sobre el movimiento obrero mexicano denuncian sistemáticamente no sólo el desempleo y subempleo, sino la precarización del empleo, aun en la economía formal, refiriéndose a los topes salariales y la pérdida del derecho a la Seguridad Social.

Hablamos, pues, del TLCAN, cuyas negociaciones culminaron en 1993 y entró en vigencia el 1 de enero de 1994.

El sombrío balance mexicano del TLCAN

Y bien: Por su inmediatez, el primer asunto a tratar, es que la migración de mexicanos hacia los Estados Unidos disminuyó entre 2009 y 2012, presuntamente a causa de las crisis financiera generada en EU, pero se incrementó en 2013, primer año del actual sexenio. En ocho años de mandato, Barack Obama deportó a más de tres millones de compatriotas.

Sin embargo,  la retrospectiva nos remite al sexenio 1988-1994, año éste en que entró en vigor el TLCAN.

Datos al canto:

En ese periodo, a los estados de tradicional expulsión de mano de obra mexicana, Michoacán, Guanajuato y Jalisco, se sumaron, en este orden, Chihuahua, Distrito Federal, Estado de México, Durango, Tamaulipas, Guerrero y Zacatecas. No se puede pasar por alto que esa tendencia se disparó en Oaxaca y Chiapas.

El fenómeno más acusado de ese proceso, es que la histórica emigración desde territorios rurales se revirtió hacia las zonas metropolitanas del país, que se agregaron con creces a la expulsión de mano de obra.

Con las siguientes variantes: 1) Se incrementó la salida de hombres jóvenes, e incluso adolescentes y niños; 2) La proporción de mujeres emigrantes, empezó a superar la de los varones, y 3) Si la emigración mexicana se caracterizó históricamente por la precaria escolaridad de los transterrados, en el periodo analizado ya se computó a individuos con título universitario. Un dato rescatado habla de 1994: Tres mil 869 con doctorado.

Una perversa consecuencia: La desintegración familiar

La migración mexicana hacia los Estados Unidos, documentada o ilegal, rompió los lazos familiares en las regiones expulsoras de mano de obra.

La gestión y aplicación del TLCAN en su primera etapa, estuvo a cargo de los presidentes de la República priistas, Carlos Salinas de Gortari y Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León. El primer presidente panista, Vicente Fox pretendió lo que llamó un plus: El Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP) y la promoción de la iniciativa estadunidense  Alianza Comercial de las Américas (ALCA), de George W. Bush.

Ha llegado a la Casa Blanca el republicano Donald Trump, con su amenaza de darlemate al TLCAN y deportar a cientos de miles de mexicanos.

Ayer, entre las torres de Nueva York, ambulaba el presidente nacional del PRI, Enrique Ochoa Reza, diciendo a quien quisiera escucharlo: No permitiremos la criminalización de nuestros compatriotas en los Estados Unidos. No puede permitirse que se niegue el futuro a los jóvenes ni a las familias. No se puede separar a los hijos de los padres por una política migratoria que no entiende los Derechos Humanos.

Hablan los clásicos de que todo aquél que asume las riendas del Estado, debe empezar por un ajuste de cuentas con el pasado, dándole a este ajuste un sentido filosófico. Ochoa Reza es filósofo por la Universidad de Columbia (USA). Parece que no leyó a los clásicos.

Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on EE.UU.-México: Los costos de una anexión irreflexiva

México – La marcha de la lealtad y otras marchas

February 13th, 2017 by Mouris Salloum George

Los años depuran y dan dimensión a los juicios y al quehacer histórico. El tiempo le da vigencia a la historia hecha y la que está en proceso de gestación.

Con esas palabras se presenta una recopilación documental que narra los graves días de La decena trágica que cambió el destino de los mexicanos en febrero de 1913.

Una advertencia se le había hecho al Presidente Madero el 23 de enero de aquel año, en un memorial dirigido a su atención por el Bloque Liberal Renovador en la XXVI Legislatura federal, en el que se le reprochaba la permanencia de porfiristas en su gabinete:

“La revolución de 1910 fue esencialmente civil  y exclusivamente popular… Es necesario, señor Presidente, que la Revolución gobierne con los revolucionarios”.

Madero no se dio tiempo a dialogar con los diputados remitentes de aquel documento, entre cuyos firmantes estaba su hermano Gustavo.

Dos semanas después, estalló La sublevación de La Ciudadela, conocida como El cuartelazo, comandado por el general Victoriano Huerta.

Fue entonces que, frente los golpistas, se dio lo que históricamente se denomina La marcha de la lealtad, que mañana se conmemora en la Ciudad de México.

La decena trágica culminó con los asesinatos del presidente Madero y del vicepresidente José María Pino Suárez.

El complot de la Embajada

Antes, sin embargo, el 17 de febrero, el presidente estadunidense William H. Taft había remitido a Madero un cablegrama en el que, en sus líneas finales, le expresa su convicción de que “el deber imperioso de estos momentos, está en aliviar pronto la situación actual”.

“Situación peligrosa”, la calificó Taft en su mensaje a Madero. El mandatario norteamericano fundaba su diagnóstico en los informes que le hacía llegar el embajador de los Estados Unidos en México, Henry Lane Wilson, casualmente, el jefe de la conspiración contra Madero.

Una narrativa sobre esos días se debe al embajador de Cuba, M. Márquez Sterling, cuyos empeños por salvar la vida de Madero y Pino Suárez resultaron estériles.

Mañana, el ritual de La marcha de la lealtad. En la noche de los tiempos neoliberales, se perdió la advertencia del Bloque Renovador al Apóstol de la democracia: “Es necesario que la Revolución gobierne con los revolucionarios”.

Ayer, el Presidente Taft. Hoy, el presidente Donald Trump. ¿Ha cambiado un siglo después el modelo de relación bilateral entre México y los Estados Unidos?

Dice el clásico que La historia se produce una vez como tragedia y se repite como farsa.

Diplomacia de Estado y solidaridad con los de abajo

Escasas 72 horas después de La marcha de la lealtad, en la escena mediática estará La marcha blanca, convocada para denunciar desde la sociedad civil la política de Washington contra México.

La cuestión no es de marchantes: Es de una diplomacia de Estado en la que se acredite, de veras, la defensa de la soberanía nacional. Por muy desiguales que desde la Casa Blanca se nos vea, el imperativo categórico, conforme el Derecho Internacional, es el trato de Estado entre iguales.

¿De qué sirve que algunos digan que la eventual presencia de tropas norteamericanas en territorio mexicano es anticonstitucional, de acuerdo con nuestra propia Carta fundamental?

El imperio obra según su propia Constitución. No solo. Obra de acuerdo con su manual del Destino manifiesto.

El llamado a la unidad nacional no sirve si se elabora sobre la presión casuística. Algo, mucho, debe tener la convocatoria a un Plan de Salvación Nacional que abone a la deuda pendiente con la mayoría del pueblo mexicano.

El establishment debe estar consciente de que ofrecer a los mexicanos sólo el derecho a “dormir bajo los puentes”, mientras otros tienen el derecho a pagar cuatro mil dólares en Houston para ver unas pocas horas un show dizque deportivo, no es el mejor argumento para unirnos frente a las acechanzas puestas acción en una agenda de dominación colonialista.

 Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on México – La marcha de la lealtad y otras marchas

Dos días después de concluir la reunión entre el primer ministro japonés, Shinzo Abe, y el presidente estadounidense, Donald Trump, la opinión pública nipona debate hoy los resultados del encuentro.

Antes de la cita había preocupación en Japón por los comentarios que hizo Trump sobre el mercado de divisas, el comercio del automóvil y el costo del mantenimiento de tropas militares estadounidenses en ese territorio.

Sin embargo, aunque el nuevo ocupante de la Casa Blanca se pronunció al respecto, no hizo ninguna petición concreta durante la reunión.

Otros funcionarios de Washington opinaron que Estados Unidos tiene la obligación de defender Japón, según dicta el tratado de seguridad nipoestadounidense que, además, cubre las Senkaku, unas islas situadas en el mar de la China Oriental.

Japón, que controla esas islas, sostiene que son parte inherente de su territorio, mientras que China y Taiwán reclaman su soberanía.

Al término de las conversaciones, la delegación japonesa dijo que los dos países lograron transmitir un mensaje rotundo, afirmación que motivó preocupación de los expertos al considerar la peligrosa estrategia militar desarrollada por Estados Unidos, con la ayuda de Tokio, en la región.

En el trasfondo están las repetidas incursiones de barcos estadounidenses en las cercanías de las costas norcoreanas, las sanciones impuestas al gobierno de la República Popular Democrática de Corea (RPDC) y la inminente instalación de un sistema para derribar misiles balísticos de corto, medio y alcance intermedio en su fase terminal, en Corea del Sur.

En cuanto a la repercusión mundial de la reunión, hay opiniones divididas en la prensa por la proximidad total de Japón a Estados Unidos, como muestra el hecho de que Abe aceptara jugar al golf con Trump, un presidente que es blanco de las críticas dentro y fuera de su país por decisiones políticas como la orden ejecutiva anti-inmigración.

No obstante, debido al elevado grado de dependencia de Japón a Estados Unidos, en lo que respecta a la seguridad la realidad hace que sea difícil para el gobierno japonés distanciarse de la Casa Blanca.

En el plano económico, el viceprimer ministro japonés Taro Aso, y el vicepresidente estadounidense, Mike Pence, llegaron a un acuerdo para entablar conversaciones más adelante, lo que aplaza de momento las duras negociaciones que se avecinaban.

La administración de Trump tiene como prioridad el país y la creación de puestos de trabajo, por lo que es posible haga solicitudes exigentes durante las negociaciones comerciales bilaterales y una de ellas podría ser establecer límites a las exportaciones japonesas a Estados Unidos.

Es probable que los negociadores se vean en el aprieto de encontrar puntos en los que hacer concesiones al tiempo que evitan el enfrentamiento.

A fin de sentar las bases de diálogo, la intención es que Pence visite Japón lo antes posible, y el propio Trump se comprometió a hacer lo mismo.

Los dos mandatarios se volverán a ver en mayo, con motivo de la cumbre del G7 de Italia, y en julio, en la cumbre del G20, esta vez en Alemania, mientras Trump podría visitar Japón en noviembre, cuando viaje a Vietnam para asistir a las reuniones del Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia-Pacífico (APEC).

La relación con Estados Unidos puede afectar la situación interna del Gobierno japonés, en opinión de especialistas y por consiguiente, Abe se esforzará por consolidar un buen entendimiento con miembros de la administración estadounidense.

Richard Ruíz Julién

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Resultados de reunión Abe-Trump y el futuro de la alianza estratégica

Líderes caribeños analizarán aquí esta semana, con preocupación, el impacto político y económico y el escenario regional, tras la asunción, el pasado 20 de enero, de Donald Trump como presidente de Estados Unidos.

Los mandatarios de los 15 países miembros de la Comunidad del Caribe (Caricom), que cinco días después asistieron en República Dominicana a la V Cumbre de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (Celac), estudiarán ahora las más recientes medidas decretadas por el magnate estadounidense.

En vísperas de su realización este jueves y viernes, son intensos los preparativos para la XXXVIII Cumbre de Caricom, que en julio pasado también fue sede del anterior encuentro. Observadores locales aseguraron a Prensa Latina que resultan varios los ‘temas Trump’, como las medidas migratorias, bancarias, ambientales y de seguridad que repercutirán en la vida socioeconómica de numerosos territorios caribeños, dedicados no solamente al turismo.

En la cumbre de la Celac, el presidente guyanés, David Granger, a cargo de la presidencia rotativa de Caricom, llamó a la agrupación a crear mecanismos que adelanten los objetivos de la comunidad y a ‘construir puertas, no muros; portones, no cercas; puentes, no bloqueos’.

Tras resaltar que los pueblos de los 33 países de la región tienen intereses, principios y valores comunes, dijo que Caricom procura que la Celac contribuya a su proceso de integración, especialmente ante las amenazas que enfrenta la región.

Caricom necesita que Celac ayude a proteger a nuestros países de agresiones y a nuestros ciudadanos de abusos, puntualizó.

Aunque no figura oficialmente en la agenda, Prensa Latina constató en fuentes diplomáticas que esos temas estarán presentes en las discusiones de los caribeños, no sólo por ser Estados Unidos su vecino más poderoso, sino además su mayor socio comercial.

Medios especializados señalaron que Estados Unidos disfrutó el año 2015 de un balance comercial favorable respecto al conjunto de los integrantes de Caricom de 4,17 billones de dólares, cifra probablemente superada en el 2016.

En ese sentido, algunos caribeños contrastaron el interés manifestado por el anterior mandatario estadounidense, Barack Obama, respecto al Caribe y manifestaron deseos de que Trump mantenga esa política e incluso que la mejore, aunque persisten las dudas.

La más reciente cumbre del organismo (Georgetown, julio 2016), acordó impulsar un ambicioso Plan Estratégico Quinquenal (2015-2019) y, entre otras medidas, planteó fomentar el Mercado y Economía Únicos de Caricom (CSME, en inglés).

Asimismo, estudiar la situación migratoria de los caribeños y las prácticas bancarias internacionales que afectan el comercio, el desarrollo económico y la transferencia de remesas.

La Comunidad del Caribe, cuya Secretaría General radica en esta capital, fue creada en 1973 para transformar la Asociación Caribeña de Libre Comercio en un Mercado Común y enfrentar los problemas de sus miembros, fomentando el comercio y las relaciones económicas con terceros países.

La organización, que realiza sus cumbres todos los años en julio y en febrero, sumó el holandés, el francés y el español al oficial idioma inglés tras la incorporación de Surinam (1995) y Haití (2002), así como algunos países de habla hispana.

Caricom acaba de festejar el aniversario 44 del establecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba (diciembre de 1972), cuando Guyana, Jamaica, Barbados y Trinidad y Tobago dieron ese paso, calificado por el líder histórico de la Revolución cubana, Fidel Castro, de ‘decisión de incuestionable valentía política’.

Las cinco cumbres Caricom-Cuba realizadas en distintas ciudades caribeñas rechazaron el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero de Estados Unidos contra Cuba y agradecieron los servicios de salud, educación y otros que especialistas cubanos brindan en la región.

La población de los 15 países miembros de Caricom, que ocupan una extensión territorial de 451 mil 776 kilómetros cuadrados, suma casi 18 millones de personas y una cantidad similar radicada en Estados Unidos y Canadá, así como en otros países.

Aparte de Haití (casi 11 millones de habitantes), los territorios más poblados son Jamaica (2,8), Trinidad y Tobago (1,3), Guyana (casi 800 mil) y Surinam (más de medio millón). Bahamas, Belice, Barbados, Santa Lucía, San Vicente, Granada, Antigua y Barbuda, Dominica, San Cristóbal y Montserrat tienen menos de 400 mil habitantes.

A este grupo se suman en calidad de miembros asociados Anguila, Bermuda, Islas Caimán, Islas Vírgenes Británicas e Islas Turcas y Caicos, así como los observadores Venezuela, México, Colombia, Aruba, Antillas Holandesas, República Dominicana y Puerto Rico.

Jorge Luna

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on América Latina – Integración regional en tiempos de Trump
Donald Trump

Neocons Use Ukraine to Reverse Trump Plan to Thaw Relations with Putin and Wage Global War

By Joachim Hagopian, February 11 2017

After three weeks as president, Donald Trump has turned out to be “same as the old boss,” definitely when it comes to US foreign policy. The short explanation is every US president merely plays a puppet figurehead role, taking his orders directly from the New World Order elite and their neocon surrogates, fast moving us towards one world government tyranny that will be the ultimate outcome of a simultaneous collapse of the global economy timed with the launch of another world war.

gmo_fertilizer

New Risks of GMO Food, Glyphosate Uncovered: Scientist’s Ground-Breaking Research

By Ken Roseboro, February 11 2017

Within just a few weeks, two studies were published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports that cast new doubts on the safety of genetically modified foods and glyphosate herbicide. The first found that a genetically modified corn, NK 603, was not substantially equivalent to a non-GMO counterpart, which is contrary to claims of GMO proponents. The second study found that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, can cause a serious liver disease at doses thousands of times lower than that allowed by law.

Paperclip_zpsxizfbkizPlanetary Lockdown, Geoengineering and “The Deep State”

By Elana Freeland, February 13 2017

For two decades, independent scientists and the science-minded have been attempting to sound the alarm regarding what is going on in our skies and in low-earth orbit while university labs and burgeoning university scientists buckle to military grants dedicated to weaponizing everything under the Sun, if not the Sun itself.

Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit.svg

Legal Immunity of George W. Bush in the “Commission” of War Crimes in Iraq: California 9th Circuit Opinion Released

By Witness Iraq, February 12 2017

The Ninth Circuit held that the Westfall Act, a federal law that providesdomestic immunity to government officials who commit alleged wrongdoing, is broad enough to cover acts that would amount to aggression under international law.

greece-euro-crisis

Greece – A New Standoff with the Troika, Germany and the IMF

By Peter Koenig, February 13 2017

Background Greece has warned the International Monetary Fund and Germany to stop playing with fire a day after Athens and its creditors failed to reach a deal on the country’s debt crisis.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Ukraine: Neocons Try to Freeze Trump-Putin Relations, New Risks of GMOs, Geoengineering and “The Deep State”

Images have emerged which contradict the BBC’s claim that a teenage victim of an alleged 2013 Aleppo incendiary bomb attack died before reaching hospital in Turkey.

In a gallery of images accompanying a contemporary report on the website of Turkish daily newspaper Hürriyet alleged victim Lutfi Arsi is pictured arriving in an ambulance at Reyhanli State Hospital, Turkey. [1]

fosforjpg2013082701291685c120d1

Alleged incendiary bomb victim Lutfi Arsi (left) arriving at Reyhanli State Hospital,
Turkey on the evening of Monday 26th August 2013. The BBC has stated that Arsi “died on his way to hospital in Turkey”.


processasp4ff90082

Alleged incendiary bomb victim Lutfi Arsi.


Ian Pannell and Darren Conway’s 29 August 2013 report of an alleged Syrian air force attack  on a school playground was broadcast on the BBC Ten o’Clock News as parliament voted on whether to launch military strikes on Damascus. OffGuardian observes:

As it happens the motion for intervention was unexpectedly defeated by a narrow majority. If this had not happened the BBC’s footage would unquestionably have served as very timely and useful PR in support of the coming war against Assad.

Fourteen year old Lutfi Arsi, wearing a yellow ‘Super 9’ t-shirt, featured prominently in Pannell and Conway’s report as one of a group of young male victims which begins writhing and groaning in unison, apparently in response to a cue given by the central figure:

ezgif.com-optimize

In the related BBC Panorama special Saving Syria’s Children, broadcast a month later on 30 September 2013, Arsi is seen being carried into Atareb Hospital, Aleppo by two men (34:05). However in a chronologically later scene (32:26) he is filmed walking around in the hospital yard without any apparent difficulty.

Lutfi Arsi appears at several points in Saving Syria’s Children.


Notably, while the bandages applied to his legs and the white cream on his chest would appear to suggest Arsi had sustained burns in those areas, the boy’s t-shirt and jeans are largely intact upon his arrival at Atareb Hospital.

That the boy in the Hürriyet images is the same person who featured in the BBC’s broadcasts is clear from a comparison of the pattern of alleged injuries:

lutficomparison

Lutfi Arsi at 37:52 in Saving Syria’s Children (left) and arriving at Reyhanli State Hospital, Turkey later the same day.


In a response to a complaint alleging fabrication in Pannell and Conway’s report, on 2 December 2013 BBC Complaints wrote:

The other adolescent who kneels up and looks into the camera wearing a t-shirt that reads “Super-9” is fourteen-year-old Luffi Arsi [sic] who was in the playground when the bomb landed. He died on his way to hospital in Turkey.

Ian Pannell’s narration in Saving Syria’s Children states (42:19):

With appalling injuries and limited medical care some of the teenagers didn’t survive: Mohammed Kenas, 14 years old. He died on the way to hospital in Turkey. Anas Said Ali, 18. He’d been waiting to pick up his little sister from school. And 14 year old Lutfi Arsi, who was in the playground when the bomb landed. Three of the ten children who died.

The BBC’s position would therefore appear to be that both Arsi and Kenas died en route to Turkey. However, it is conceivable that BBC Complaints confused Kenas with Arsi in its response. It is incumbent upon the BBC to provide clarification.

Former UK ambassador Craig Murray recently indicated that sources within the BBC had revealed to him that Pannell and Conway’s report had “exaggerated” the severity of the incident and that some scenes had been “filmed again”.

In assessing the authenticity of the alleged injuries in the report note the link between British doctor and ex-army captain Saleyha Ahsan, who was filmed treating the victims, and HOSPEX (“Hospital Exercises”) training exercises, which are run by the British military and involve highly sophisticated injury simulation. A year after Saving Syria’s Children aired, Dr Ahsan presented a BBC Newsnight segment on HOSPEX “macro-simulation” in which she stated:

The principle behind macro simulation is that it’s as close to reality as possible. Actors and make-up artists mimic even the most severe of injuries.

The company which provided the injury simulations featured in the Newsnight report, Trauma FX, promotes itself as the “UK’s leading provider of realistic casualty simulation”. TraumaFX’s website states that it “support(s) various military forces internationally” and “can easily travel international as we are a mobile team and can work in any location”. The company has “over 10 years experience” of supporting UK military training exercises and specialises “in simulating CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear] injuries and conditions”.

Notes

[1] A number of  other alleged victims from Ian Pannell and Darren Conway’s 29 August 2013 BBC News report, the related Panorama special Saving Syria’s Children and associated third party footage available on you Tube also appear in the Hürriyet images (the Hürriyet images are first left in all instances below):

picture1

Ahmed Darwish http://bit.ly/1KGzVeK

picture2

Mohammed Asi http://bit.ly/2kghUgg

picture3

Unidentified girl featured in non-BBC footage from Atareb Hospital, Aleppo, 26/8/13 http://bit.ly/2kgtQOU (briefly discussed in the notes here http://bit.ly/1EUkgYv)

picture4

Unidentified adolescent male featured in the BBC’s reports, notably the “tableau” scene http://bit.ly/1DlUs70

picture5

Ridwan Qambari/Kanbari http://bit.ly/2kgxWXt identified by the BBC as father of alleged female victim Siham Qambari/Kanbari http://bit.ly/1q85tGh (presumably also pictured on gurney)

picture6

Unidentfied adolescent male who appears to be grinning broadly in the BBC’s footage http://bit.ly/1zXC16Y

picture7

Unidentified male who appears at various points in Saving Syria’s Children

picture8

Possibly the supposed teacher who appears in Saving Syria’s Children, swaying and lurching bizarrely, and in associated non-BBC footage http://bit.ly/1FcaK3Q

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on BBC Falsely Claimed Incendiary Bomb Victim “Died on His Way to Hospital in Turkey”

On the back of Brexit, the UK government is planning what could be a disastrous trade deal with the Trump administration. It would likely be worse than the secretive and undemocratic stalled Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal that the EU has been planning with the US.

As for food and agriculture, such a trade deal would be contingent on the UK abandoning standards that took years to put in place, allowing imports of US foods that were previously rejected: beef from cattle implanted with growth hormones, chlorine-washed chicken and unlabelled genetically modified (GM) foods.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Monsanto is preparing a fresh effort to try to soften up the UK public for GM food appearing on supermarket shelves and GM crops being planted in the nation’s fields. Former World Bank communications strategist and slick communicator Vance Crowe has been hired by Monsanto as its ‘Director of Millenial Engagement’ to convince younger people about the benefits of GM. And he is visiting the UK to give a series of talks.

Although Crowe will do his best, no amount of corporate spin can hide the reality: the UK public does not want GM; there is no scientific consensus on the health safety aspects of GM; there is more than sufficient information to indicate serious health dangers (for example, see this); and there are well-documented adverse environmental impacts derived from what is an over-hyped (and largely unneeded) technology. In fact, the failed GM project has to date left a trail of broken promises in its wake that are clear for all to see: no decrease in pesticide use and no increase in crop yields.

One thing in the technology’s favour, however: at least from an industry standpoint, GM allows corporations like Monsanto tosecure intellectual property rights on seeds and to secure farmer dependency on proprietary inputs. In this respect, maybe the public aren’t as ignorant about the GM issue as Monsanto would like us all to think: in a recent survey in Canada, over 50% of the public who were questioned believed GM was just a way for companies to increase their profits.

Crowe is promoting a food and agriculture model based not only on a disastrously failing taxpayer-subsidised chemical treadmill but on a failing biotech treadmill too. Good for the agritech/agribusiness cartel, bad for farmers, bad the environment and bad for consumers.

But Crowe reads from a script that will try to convince everyone that the opposite is true: Monsanto is providing a service to humanity and that his company is a hapless victim of hate-filled ideologues. He is on record as saying that that critics of modern agriculture have “spread anger and fear into the system” and that:

“what we as an industry can do is to package ideas so that people can understand them and spread our ideas throughout networks making sure that what we believe spreads out to be what culture stacks up to.”

Part of the ‘cultural stack-up’ involves an attempt to depict critics of modern agriculture and GMOs as anti-science and fear-mongers who deal in ideology and emotion. These claims have been used by various pro-GM ideologues, such as Kevin FoltaOwen PatersonRichard John Roberts and Shanthu Shantharam time and again. And these claims have been debunked time and again (see thisthis and this).

The industry tactic is that if the same baseless claims are repeated as nauseam, the public and policy makers will take them at face value. The aim is to reduce the debate to a series of trivial soundbites. This manipulation is carried out by individuals with an interest in promoting a GMO techno quick-fix for world hunger and whose own self-interest compels them to side-line the social, environmental and economic impacts of this technology and the root causes of poverty, malnutrition, inequality and hunger.

Slogans and PR stunts are designed to bring the debate down to smears and emotional blackmail to sway public opinion in favour of GMOs. They are designed to denigrate critics and marginalise debate about realistic alternatives for feeding the world, which challenge the interests of the global GMO agritech sector.

The pro-GMO lobby has used such tactics as part of a well-funded, carefully thought-out strategy for dealing with critics. It has favoured public relations, deception and the co-option of public institutions over actual science.

The GMO-agritech sector has taken its cue from big tobacco, big oil and right-wing ‘free’ market fundamentalists whose only concern is to maximise profit, do away with regulations and health and safety standards and deceive the public and politicians that harmful products and practices are in the public interest. For instance, front groups like the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science have done their best to hijack the concept of ‘sound science’ and twist it in favour of industry propaganda which is based on anything but science that is ‘sound’.

Vance Crowe aside, we should also take note of other key figures who are currently jumping on the pro-GMO bandwagon and who are trying to shape the debate.

Former UK agriculture permanent secretary (i.e. a former senior civil servant) Sir Richard Packer recently penned the article ‘Brexit, Agriculture and Agricultural Policy’. He argues that anti-scientific attitudes and bureaucracy are holding back the scientific advance of agricultural production.

In the EU agricultural sector, he says:

“… opposition is especially prominent in the debates over GM crops and foods and, sometimes, on issues such as pesticides. On GM in particular, the EU has been unable to make progress despite clear scientific advice.”

Packer argues that the EU debate on GM foods was for a considerable period hijacked by “anti-scientific forces”:

“If, as many believe, GM has a significant role to play in meeting future food supply sustainability, it would be sensible to make rapid progress on the matter, for the benefit of future generations…. As in the EU, there are also groups in the UK opposed to GM as a matter of principle who would not therefore be persuadable as to its benefits. But it is to be hoped the scientific view would prevail and there would be an opportunity to ensure it did.”

He adds that after Brexit there will be scope for ‘improvement’ in the present arrangements:

“Post-Brexit there will also be scope for adopting a more rigorous scientific attitude on matters such as pesticides and biotechnology including GM. We cannot afford the luxury of ignoring scientific advance because Luddites shout louder than the rest of us. But the basic system suits us quite well.”

It is interesting to note that his piece was originally published on the website of the pro-privatisation, pro-deregulation right-wing  Centre for Policy Studies lobby group. His views are based on little more than standard industry-type public relations. There is the usual hint of emotional blackmail that suggests future generations will lose out on the perceived benefits of GM thanks to a bunch of anti-science ideologues (future generations that will no doubt also lose out on the ‘benefits’ of more health-destroying pesticides from an agrochemicals industry in dire need of more deregulation). Of course, the tiresome Luddite smear is thrown in for good measure.

Isn’t it about time that people in Parker’s position stood up and held the likes of Monsanto and its claims to account instead of acting as cheerleaders? By buying into industry PR and attacks on critics, does Parker think he comes across as credible and objective?

Despite the spin and deception, the public is not as gullible or misinformed about the GM issue as the likes of Parker or Crowe would like to think.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto-GMO Propaganda. “Softening-up” the British Public in Favour of GM Food

Until a few weeks ago no one in North America even heard of journalist-blogger Alexander Lapshin. He lives primarily in Moscow but as a Russian-Israeli-Ukrainian citizen possessing three passports, Lapshin is a globetrotter who writes a blog called “Life Adventures” for the popular travel website LiveJournal. In Russia his on the road stories to off the beaten path, unusual places around the world (122 in all) have generated quite a following for their colorful and humorous portrayal of life as a foreign tourist visiting various diverse cultures and locations. But the 40-year old Lapshin is in political hot water now as a political prisoner sitting in a jail in Baku, Azerbaijan. His legal case has attracted international attention and involves high profile politics in four different nations.

On December 15th last year, Alexander Lapshin was detained in Minsk, Belarus. Viewing the blogger as a threat to “homeland security” based on his alleged “espionage,” the Azerbaijan prosecuting office had ordered the blogger’s arrest and requested extradition at the behest of Azeri President Ilham Aliyev. The travel journalist had made trips in 2011 and 2012 to Nagorno-Karabakh, sympathizing and identifying with the Armenians he met as reflected in his blog entries. Then on his social media account on April 6, 2016 and again on June 29th last year, Alexander commented on the unfairness of Azerbaijan’s territorial claims based on its attempted invasion of the disputed region, calling for recognition of the enclave’s independence, apparently a crime in violation of Azeri law code 281.2. Aware that the popular journalist’s messages were reaching a receptive audience of thousands of readers, the Baku government was growing nervous that his writings were contributing to the Nagorno-Karabakh movement for worldwide recognized independence. Thus, the reactionary oppressive state drew up a legal case against Lapshin, charging him with violating Azerbaijan’s “territorial integrity.” Baku was determined to set a harsh example of him to show the rest of the world what happens to journalists who publicly badmouth Azerbaijan.

Gloating over the victory of extraditing Lapshin and his current Baku incarceration, the deputy speaker for Azerbaijan’s legislature warned the rest of the world:

Those not reckoning with Azerbaijan, may share Lapshin’s fate.

The timing of the blogger’s detainment in Belarus came immediately following Lapshin’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s visit to Baku to close a $5 billion missile arms deal with Azerbaijan. With Azeri-Israeli relations never chummier, the Baku government seized the moment when in mid-December the traveling journalist landed in Minsk, a capital housing a government sympathetic to the Azeri cause.

Another arbitrary Azeri law no one ever heard of apparently until the Lapshin case prohibits visitors from other countries to travel to Nagorno-Karabakh without authorized permission (code 318.2) from the Baku government. Of course thousands of individuals have gone to Nagorno-Karabakh since 1994, after Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a bloody six year war resulting in 30,000 deaths that Armenia won, leaving only Armenians who’ve been living there for many centuries. But since 1994 apparently Alexander Lapshin is the first and only person ever arrested for entering the disputed region without clearing the visit with Baku officials.

The long contested territory originated when Josef Stalin in 1920 gave Azerbaijan administrative control, despite Nagorno-Karabakh’s overwhelming majority population being Armenian since ancient times. And hence arose the controversy by the ruthless Soviet dictator acting by designed decree as a shrewd divide and rule strategist to facilitate autocratic control over his territorial Soviet colonies Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the Armenians were still facing genocide, Stalin knew handing over power to the Turkish brethren the Azeris would result in further persecution of Armenian residents in Nagorno-Karabakh, otherwise known as Artsakh to the Armenians. This ancient Armenian land had been home to Armenians long before the Azeris as an ethnic group and culture ever came into existence.

The world’s first Christian nation of Armenia in 301 AD included what is a large portion of now eastern Turkey (Western Armenia), Artsakh, another Armenian enclave Nakhichevan as well as the current small nation Armenia (Eastern Armenia). Even prior to the breakup of the Soviet Empire in 1991, the residents of Artsakh submitted to Moscow a peaceful appeal for Armenian reunification back in 1988. As the pogrom killings of Armenians in Baku and other Azeri cities became more prevalent, eventually in self-defense, war broke out. Amidst the ongoing war, in 1991 Artsakh residents overwhelmingly voted for their own independence, declaring itself the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. At one point Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was receptive to granting sovereignty, but the matter was delayed by bureaucracy in the face of the unstable, chaotic dissolution of the Soviet Union. Smaller than the state of Connecticut with a population near 150,000 Armenians, the mountainous region remains a global hotspot to this day that could potentially be the incendiary igniting World War III.

The question of justice for the Armenian people has lingered unanswered for well over a century. Public acknowledgement has come extremely slow for the twentieth century’s first genocide to be officially recognized by the offending nation Turkey, which to this day has chosen to remain in complete denial after killing one and a half million Armenians. 100 years after the genocide began, only 20 nations around the world have formally acknowledged this mostly forgotten, gross injustice. But in the last couple years a total of 29 can now be counted. Because US Empire has geo-strategically needed NATO member Turkey for airbases to carry out its imperialistic wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, US leaders have lacked the moral courage to nationally recognize the genocide, fearing it would offend the offending nation. And of course the fellow Turkish cousins, the Azeris will also always pretend the massacres never happened.

Last year within 24 hours after President Aliyev visited Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington, during the overnight hours on April Fool’s Day, the Azeri army attempted to “fool” Armenians with a premeditated surprise attack, launching a failed invasioninto Nagorno-Karabakh. But Armenian soldiers from the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic squelched the invaders’ aggression after several days of fierce fighting, successfully repelling the Azeri offensive in courageous self-defense of their ancient homeland. Evidence of Azeri war crime atrocities committed against Armenian civilians and soldiers was confirmed.

It’s common knowledge that in recent years Turkey (like the US) has been a huge supporter of ISIS and in Syria ISIS terrorists have targeted Christian minorities among them Armenians living in northern Syria, especially in and around the now decimated city Aleppo where historically a large population of Armenians have lived for centuries. The genocide is not over in the minds and actions of many who still hate Armenians. Responding to last April’s attack, Turkish President Recep Erdogan vowed, “We will support Azerbaijan to the end!” Not only did the Turkish president love Azeris killing Armenians, but in the broader context of the geopolitics chessboard, the Azeri attacks on Armenians had the tacit approval of the United States government as well.

Regime change queen Victoria Nuland, the foul mouthed neocon who was Hillary’s State Department Undersecretary for Europe and Eurasia, credited with engineering the illegal Ukraine coupthree years ago this month, had visited Azerbaijan last year shortly ahead of the five day war in April, sniffing out regime change color revolutions in the Caucasus, no doubt targeting Armenia to destabilize and deliver payback to Putin. After all, the Russian leader had singlehandedly humiliated and upended Empire’s Great Game (aka regime change) in Syria where Putin’s intervention coming to the requested aid of much maligned President Assad was turning the tide against the terrorists the US created. Together Syria, with a contingent from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, Syrian Kurds and Russian air cover protection, Empire’s secret proxy war mercenary ally ISIS and al Qaeda were getting their asses kicked. So the Nuland neocons were busily worming their way into enflaming the Caucasus on Russia’s Chechnya-Dagestan doorstep in a subversive ploy to force Putin’s hand away from eliminating what’s left of the US Empire’s secret killing machine that thanks to the neocons have become the world’s largest terrorist organization.

Nothing new here, Islamic jihadist terrorists had been a longtime USA creation and proxy companion, starting with globalists Brezhenski and George HW’s CIA in the late 1970’s deployed in the empire graveyard Afghanistan to fight the Russians throughout the1980’s, helping to break up their Soviet empire, then ontoYugoslavia throughout the 1990’s to “balkanize” that nation into a half dozen broken pieces, then using 19 more jihadists as phantom patsy fall guys for the Cheney-Bush “new Pearl Harbor” 9/11 false flag and then, to this day as fake enemies in the neocons’ “endlesswar on terror” in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and beyond. Treasonous presidents and their minions have yet to be brought to justice for all their egregious crimes against humanity that include the death of over 4 million Muslims. And throughout, Putin has outwitted, outclassed, and out-maneuvered the US Empire and its savage bedfellows at every turn.

Thus, in the broader sense, the Armenians, deemed pro-Russian loyalists by Washington, have been a targeted barrier hinderingEmpire expansion. On the other hand, seeing dollar signs, the US and Azerbaijan have curried mutual favor, and as such, Empire’s “closeness” with Armenia’s historic Muslim enemies, supportingoil-rich Azerbaijan and geo-strategic rich Turkey has never been closer. The US has exploited this dynamic, knowing both nations are frothing at the mouth to finish the genocide against Armenians started a century ago. Flanked by large hostile populations, Turkey to the west (approaching 80 million) and Azerbaijan to the east (near 10 million), both having sealed off their borders preventing any trade routes into Armenia (pop. 3.8 million), Armenia and its defiant little enclave Artsakh have always been a bloody thorn in their side. So after last year’s military defeat, Baku figured the time is right in 2017 to imprison Alexander Lapshin for his audacity to publicly speak out through his writings exposing Azerbaijan’s horrific human rights record and gross injustice toward the Artsakh Armenians.

To the controlling evildoers of the world, the moral conscience of every truth speaking journalist must be silenced as authoritarian tyranny increasingly takes hold on this planet. And even though Lapshin is both a Russian and Israeli citizen, Azerbaijan in collusion with fellow two decade dictator Belarus President AlyaksandrLukashenka, figure their cozily cordial business relationships with both Moscow and Tel Aviv shouldn’t get in the way of either nation coming to the rescue of one defiant journalist who captured the wrath of King Aliyev… I mean President Aliyev, who inherited his dictatorship from his dictator daddy after running the country from 1993-2003.

After the authorities in Mink arrested Lapshin, the Belarusian president stated:

He [Lapshin] was detained in accordance with an Interpol decision, and according to the law we have to pass him to Azerbaijan.

But it appears that Lukashenka lied, merely passing the buck as anInterpol spokesman later confirmed that Interpol had nothing to do with the Lapshin arrest in Belarus.

Russian and Armenian commentators are suggesting that the authoritarian Belarus president may be using Lapshin as a political football aimed mostly at Putin but Armenia too, and a jab at the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s (CSTO) disunity, which Russia, Armenia, Belarus and Azerbaijan are all members. Additionally, according to the Russian Federation Constitution, a Russian citizen cannot be extradited from another country. Yet Belarus defied Russian law.

Lapshin had refused to delete his blogs and said his being blacklisted was “nonsense.” Displaying such public defiance and moral conviction was an affront to Azerbaijan’s tyrannical dictatorship. The human rights records in both Belarus andAzerbaijan where imprisoning and/or killing truth-telling journalists is commonplace, and rank among the worst in the entire world. So it is that when the Belarus Supreme Court upheldAzerbaijan’s extradition order this week, delivering the journalist to Baku last Tuesday, Aliyev took time out of his busy dictator schedule to personally thank the Belarusian president’s “fair stance” with a phone call.

Prior to extradition a spokesman for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stated:

Azerbaijan wishes to achieve the extradition of a citizen of a foreign state, to try [him] on a fictitious ‘crime;’ this is a gross violation of international law and international humanitarian law.

In response to Lapshin being extradited and now in Azeri custody, the Republic of Armenia spokesman remarked that:

Alexander Lapshin’s persecution and his extradition to Azerbaijan amount to a gross violation of the freedom of speech and movement and fundamental human rights.

What neither Aliyev nor Lukashenka are counting on is the outpouring of support for the journalist and condemnation toward Belarus and Azerbaijan from the international community reacting to his extradition, imprisonment and soon to begin trial. Rallies of support and protest began last month in Yerevan outside the Belarus Embassy, but quickly spread to Armenian Americans protesting outside Belarus Embassies in New York and Washington as well, also in Canberra, Australia too. The Armenian Diaspora around the world is mobilizing efforts to bring needed awareness worldwide and mounting pressures for justice to this flagrant case of in-the-world’s-face oppression. Also support from fellow Russian and Israeli citizens is expected. International and national laws grant journalists the freedom of expression and mobility. And with free press not so free any more in both the US and world these days, this case is not going away any time soon, and nations like Azerbaijan and Belarus will only alienate themselves further from the rest of the world.

The big question remains will Putin and Netanyahu intervene on one of their own citizen’s behalf or is the weapons for oil trade more important than right from wrong? If only a feeble, going-through-the-motions attempt through diplomatic channels are made by Russia and Israel to assuage worldwide public outrage, and the journalist rots away in an Azeri jail cell for the nextthirteen years, which by the bogus Baku laws Lapshin’s been framed, he could actually do, then shame on the three host nations where Lapshin holds citizenship, but especially shame on Belarus and the main perpetrator Azerbaijan.

If Lapshin is not released soon, it’s time to review extradition laws. The Azeri axe-murdering Ramil Safarov in 2004 took the life of an Armenian soldier while sleeping in his bunk during a joint training exercise in Hungary, and then shortly afterwards received a hero’swelcome home by President Aliyev. Should Safarov ever leave Azerbaijan, he needs to be sent directly to Armenia to stand trial and meet his overdue punishment for a far worse crime than speaking the truth.

This legal case of course brings to the international attention once again the long overdue plight of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian people. Last century’s genocide wiped out one third of all Armenians off the face of this earth at the hands of the Turks in the closing days of the Ottoman Empire during World War I (1915-1917), setting up the now century old, largely unknown conflict that’s been brewing still unresolved for the last 100 years.

The Artsakh ombudsman predicts that the Lapshin case will backfire and increase interest and support towards recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s independence. As the ugly truth about Azerbaijan spreads, and the truth about the people of Artsakh grows, gradually an increasing number of individual leaders, states and nations are coming around to recognizing the Republic’s hard-earned, long overdue independence. And in parallel process, so is the genocide issue being recognized. After last April’s attack on the Artsakh Armenians, political leaders around the world including several from both Europe and America began calling for international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent and sovereign state.

People of conscience know that is the right thing to do. Oil-rich Azerbaijan’s purchase of sophisticated kamikaze drone technology and Iron Dome missile system from Israel and the latest state of the art high powered weaponry from its biggest arms dealerRussia are just waiting for the day when it can outpower the tiny Armenian enclave, and by bloody force once again retake the small turf in the rural mountainous region, purely out of spite and hatred toward a peaceful religious people who have always just wanted what has been, by any moral judgment, rightfully theirs all along.

Though the economically strapped Republic of Armenia has supplied Artsakh with whatever modest means available militarily for their Armenian brothers and sisters in the enclave to defend themselves, perhaps next time the Azeris strike, it won’t be enough. Though Russia has a military base in Armenia and on credit loans, sells military hardware to Yerevan, supplying arms to the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan that both opposing sides use to kill each other, Putin has not offered any financial or military aid to Nagorno-Karabakh, and has remained neutral in the forever conflict, despite the Russians being responsible for originally causing the conflict a century ago.

Outside the 3.8 million Armenians living in the Republic of Armenia where just over one third of all the world’s 10 million Armenians reside, Russia’s Armenian population of 2.2 million is the largest within the Diaspora. Next comes America as home to the world’s third largest Armenian population at 1.4 million. Despite the genocide that forced Armenians to spread themselves thin throughout the globe, as an enterprising, hardworking people in their numerous host countries, they have achieved great successin the arts as well as the social and economic life of their nations. Ironically, Armenians inside Armenia have not fared so well as they continue to struggle living in one of the poorest former Soviet states. When it comes to the geopolitics chessboard game of world domination, Armenia and Armenians have had very little power to stop the larger destructive forces that, over time, have always worked against them.

In contrast, US and Western oil interests have invested billions in producing and shipping Azerbaijani oil and gas through pipelines built at higher cost and many more miles around Armenian borders, through Georgia to Turkey and onto Europe as another way to undercut Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. The fallen oil prices have hurt the Azeri economy and caused internal turmoil under Aliyev’s increasing totalitarian dictatorship. Aliyev has willfully used the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to raise nationalism to help offset his political and economic instability. The presence of the Armenian people and their borders have imposed an inconvenient and costly obstacle to ambitious Western-Azeri pipeline expansion.

Issues of legal cases against Turkey seeking reparations for the slaughter of Armenian people, stealing their wealth and lands a century ago, or Armenians’ diehard persistence combating continued injustice, or facing the onslaught of negative publicity, collateral damage and legal challenges from the international community resulting from the unlawful, unethical extradition and imprisonment of one defiantly moral journalist, certainly do not rank high on any globalist powerbroker’s to-do list. Nor does the Artsakh or Armenia cause for that matter.

Despite having a Russian military base in Armenia and moving aRussian S-400 missile defense system to the Armenian border with Turkey during the height of Putin and Erdogan’s strained relations last year, critics amongst both the Armenian and Russian communities claim that even Putin regards the Armenian Question as an inconvenient liability. Speculative dialogue arose during the Azeri-Armenian clash last spring when Putin critics expected him to live up to the defense pact alliance he has with Yerevan to rush to the aid of the Armenians, especially after Azeri shelling hit border towns in the Republic of Armenia. Putin’s defense pact does not apply to Artsakh. Also complaints were heard that as the main arms supplier to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, at least Putin should provide parity in weapons capability that due to Azeri oil money in recent years has tilted decidedly in Azerbaijan’s favor.

With a Russian citizen now languishing inside an Azeri jail cell set to stand trial in a Baku kangaroo court, unable to receive a fair and impartial trial, again critics feel that Putin should have applied his full court pressure to Russian vassals Belarus and Azerbaijan and prevented this international spectacle from ever taking place. They contend that redemption now can only be accommodated by pulling rank on Aliyev to send Lapshin home to Moscow. But at this point that would only cause the Azeri dictator to seriously lose face before the world. And with Putin still courting Aliyev in the ongoing balance of power tug-of-war between East and West, Putin doesn’t want to risk losing Azeri favor, especially now that his relations with Azerbaijan’s strongest ally Turkey have only been recently restored. Next month Putin meets with Erdogan. Strong arming Aliyev for Lapshin’s release is not likely in the cards either.

Just as the US constantly makes up lies to discredit and demonize its designated enemies like Putin, and does so with complete impunity, other despotic nations like Azerbaijan follow Empire’s lead. And though Aliyev has no moral grounds to justify punishing a foreign journalist for speaking the truth, the Azeri tyrant believes he’ll get away with his unjust crime with complicit US backing. Aliyev assessed the risk was worth taking because Putin already has his hands full in Ukraine and Syria, and warding off incessant propaganda attacks from the West. Aliyev figures he has capital that can be used against Putin’s vested interest in preserving “friendlier” business relations with Azerbaijan. And he’s probably correct.

In the global chessboard game where so much is in flux and at stake in this world right now, one man’s fate over one relatively “minor” hotspot Nagorno-Karabakh, amidst other bigger hotspots that include escalating proxy wars unfolding in Ukraine, Syria and Yemen, that in turn are ratcheting up border tensions and hostilities between the West and Putin and his strongest Eastern allies China and Iran, the big picture may cause Lapshin to not be a high enough priority for Putin to forcefully react on his behalf. And don’t count on Bibi to save Alexander either. In the meantime, the world will be closely watching what happens in the Baku courtroom. And if Alexander Lapshin is destined to spend the next dozen plus years sitting behind bars, the voices for justice will only grow infinitely louder in the world court of public opinion.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Alexander Lapshin Case: Extradited and Imprisoned in Azerbaijan over Telling the Truth about Nagorno-Karabakh

Prejudice Two Ways. Islamophobia Breeds Paranoia

February 13th, 2017 by Ali Shakir

The large mall at its busiest. Everyone is running around, picking up last-minute gifts. Christmas carols rang through the air, but hardly anyone listened. I watched the shopping frenzy from afar while drinking coffee.

A few days ago a man had ploughed a truck into a crowded market in Berlin, murdering twelve and injuring much more. German investigators believe the perpetrator is an ISIS allegiant from Tunisia. I scrolled through the latest updates on the carnage on my mobile phone, and took another sip from my cup. … What if another ISIS allegiant was about to detonate himself and blow this place up? The number of potential fatalities sent shivers down my spine. I scanned the surrounding area for possible suspects.

It’s quite warm in here, why is that man over there wearing a puffer jacket? I gasped when he turned around. He had a long beard, and looked Indian. No, he’s probably from Afghanistan. An al Qaeda operative? … Oh my God! He’s pulling something out. That’s it, we’re finished! Should I take cover under the table? The man sneezed, rubbed his red nose with his handkerchief and put it back in his pocket, obviously struggling with a bad cold, or maybe hay fever. Just like me.

I felt a twinge of guilt, but then caught a glimpse of a short lady in a black burka, eyes barely visible. What’s in that huge stroller she’s pushing? Why is she hurrying? She looks confused. Who’s she waving her hand at? An accomplice? Are they signaling zero-hour? Is a machine gun going to come out of that loose garment to shoot everyone down? A little girl came running and clung to the shrouded woman, clasping her arms around what seemed like a waist. A tiny hand from the stroller stretched upwards too.

Enough with this Paranoia! But, why am I excluding Caucasians? ISIS has been recruiting them to fight in the Middle East as well, hasn’t it? What about that pale-faced girl with the nose piercing? Maybe she’s a junkie who’s willing to do anything to get her fix. And that tattooed young man, he looks stoned too. In the middle of my scrutiny, I came across my reflected image in the opposite mirrored wall. … I stared into my sad eyes and serious face for a while, and the reality hit me: Why not you?

What? Me? Just because I have Arab features, doesn’t mean I’m a prospective killer. I’m an advocate for secularism, women’s and minorities’ rights, and have written extensively against the tyranny of the clergy. Also, I stopped practicing Islam a long time ago; how can I be a terrorist? …  Nonsense! What difference do my beliefs make? They don’t show on my forehead. Even if they did, what significance do they have in the split-second decisions people make when facing a lurking disaster?

I grabbed a newspaper to distract myself from disturbing thoughts. An Arab-American was booted off his flight for no other reason than speaking in his mother tongue, one of the headlines read.Unfair! Those Westerners are punishing us—victims of terrorism, for the monster their politicians and strategists had created and enhanced over the past decades. I should write about that.

But, who—in this shamelessly visual age, would bother to read an analysis of the Muslim world’s modern history, when ISIS is swamping the social media with ghastly short videos, whose impact on their viewers is often irrevocable? What’s the point, and what can my apologetic writings change if the Pandora’s Box has been opened and is indiscriminately spreading poison. No time for blame or alibis! People are running for their lives, and many are doomed to get crushed in the stampede.

Disconcerting gazes of the other patrons followed me as I walked out of the coffee shop. A burning sensation washed over my body, as if stung by a swarm of bees. I took a moment to breathe and reflect: This is not likely to change anytime soon, and since there isn’t much for me to do, I might as well get used to living with it. … The recent controversy surrounding the travel ban to the United States from several Muslim-majority countries reminded me of my pre-Christmas fright and rekindled my confusion.

President Trump’s executive order didn’t come as a surprise to millions of Iraqis who have been suffering humiliation and rejection at world airports and embassies since Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It did raise questions though about the validity of such measures when the Middle East is bristling with American schools, universities, military bases, financial institutions and other companies.

Terrorists nowadays don’t need to travel all the way to the United States to attack American interests and individuals, they have them right there in their own backyard. But does the ban at least guarantee the safety of American citizens inside their borders? I don’t think so. …  Less than three weeks after Berlin’s Breitscheidplatz attack; a gunman went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, killing five passengers and wounding several others. The twenty-six-year-old suspect is an army veteran of white Hispanic descent, the media reported. He’s neither Arab nor Muslim.

Ali Shakir, Iraqi-born, New Zealand-based architect, and author of A Muslim on the Bridge (2013) and Café Fayrouz (2015)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Prejudice Two Ways. Islamophobia Breeds Paranoia

Whether or not Trump knows now, he’ll soon enough realize the so-called the Israeli/Palestinian peace process is the greatest hoax in modern times.

It’s been dead-on-arrival each time proposed for nearly half a century. Israel wants conflict and instability, not peaceful resolution – the way it’s always been since its inception.

It doesn’t negotiate. It never has. It demands unconditional Palestinian subservience to its interests, yielding virtually nothing in return, the price long-suffering people pay, victims of Anglo-Zionist viciousness.

In hindsight, analysts one day may call Trump the most one-sided, pro-Israeli president in US history – dating from the rape, slaughter and ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, Israel stealing 78% of its historic land, taking the rest in 1967.

Netanyahu considers Trump’s election a free pass to build endless settlement units on stolen Palestinian land. Who’ll stop him?

So far, Trump hasn’t translated campaign rhetoric into policy. He wisely backed off on pledging to move America’s embassy to Jerusalem – an international city, not Israel’s exclusive capital no matter what its regime claims, regardless of laws it passes.

Interviewed by Sheldon Adelson’s Hebrew language Israel Hayom broadsheet, his rhetoric changed from telling AIPAC conference attendees last March that he’d “move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem to now saying:

I’m thinking about it. I’m learning the issue, and we’ll see what happens. It’s not an easy decision. It’s been discussed for so many years. No one wants to make this decision, and I’m thinking about it seriously.

No nation has its embassy there. If Trump opts to move, he’ll breach international law, making America the only one. He’s been warned about potential consequences of a move this reckless.

He also said he’ll explore possibilities for making what he calls “the ultimate deal” – what no other US leader accomplished, appointing his orthodox Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner to lead efforts to try negotiate Israeli/Palestinian peace.

“No deal is a good deal if it isn’t good for all sides,” said Trump. “We are currently in a process that has been going on for a long time. Decades.”

A lot of people think that it can’t be done. And a lot of smart people around me claim that you can’t reach an agreement. I don’t agree. I think we can reach an agreement and that we need to reach an agreement.

I want Israel to act reasonably in the peace process, and that it will finally happen after so many years. And maybe there will even be a possibility of a bigger peace than just Israel and the Palestinians. I want both sides to act reasonably and we have a good chance at that.

Throughout its entire history, Israel never acted “reasonably” – especially on issues regarding Palestinian rights. The only “peace” Israel will accept is unconditional Palestinian surrender – impossible no matter what its longstanding collaborative leadership does or doesn’t do.

Israel controls around 85% of historic Palestine, including greater Jerusalem and virtually all valued West Bank land.

Long ago a two-state solution was possible. No longer. The only feasible resolution is one state for all its people, what Israel will never accept, assuring endless conflict as far ahead as one dare imagine.

Trump’s lofty rhetoric is meaningless. Reality on the ground tells another story.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Blowing Smoke on Possible Israeli/Palestinian Peace Deal

Yemen: In the Shadow of Death

February 13th, 2017 by George Capaccio

It is my intention to make my entire life a rejection of, a protest against the crimes and injustices of war and political tyranny which threaten to destroy the whole human race and the world … If I say no to all these secular forces, I also say yes to all that is good in the world and in humanity. I say yes to all that is beautiful in nature … I say yes to all the men and women who are my brothers and sisters in the world.—   Thomas Merton, Trappist monk, poet, philosopher, teacher, and activist (1915-1968)

How did Nawar al-Awlaki, an 8-year-old child, die at the hands of a Navy Seal during last month’s nighttime raid in Yemen? We know from credible reports that she was shot in the neck at close range and received no medical aid throughout the remaining two hours of her life. Some questions come to mind: Was the shooting intentional? Did the soldier deliberately and with “malice aforethought” point his weapon at Nawar and squeeze the trigger, fully aware that he was murdering in cold blood an innocent child? For that matter, might he have been influenced, if only subliminally, by our Commander-in-Chief’s prescription for winning the so-called “war on terror? During his campaign for the presidency, Trump announced that a sure-fire strategy for defeating ISIS had to involve eliminating their families as well as the terrorists themselves. Here are his exact words:

When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.

Nawar was part of a family that has the dubious honor of having lost several members to extrajudicial assassinations carried out by CIA drones and their pilots, safely embedded in military bases thousands of miles away. In 2011, Nawar’s father, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen, was successfully “neutralized” despite his having never been charged with or convicted of a crime. (At one time, Awlaki had been viewed as a “moderate Muslim cleric” whom the Pentagon, soon after 9/11, consulted about how to deal with extremism. His subsequent radicalization, however, and his advocacy of a violent response to the violence inflicted by the United States on Muslim countries landed him on Obama’s hit list. For Awlaki, born and educated in America, the Constitutional provision for due process of law simply did not apply.)

“Two weeks after the killing of Awlaki,” journalist Glen Greenwald writes, “a separate CIA drone strike in Yemen killed his 16-year-old American-born son Abdulrahman, along with the boy’s 17-year-old cousin and several other innocent Yemenis.” These murders were the handiwork of our beloved, peace-loving former president Barack Obama. And now Donald Trump, having picked up where Obama left off, authorized the commando raid by the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 that resulted in the death of one U.S. service member and the deaths of 30 civilians, including 10 women and children. The justification for the raid was the purported existence of a compound where al Qaeda masterminds had gathered and where computer records and other data might possibly reveal the group’s plans for future terrorist attacks, like the one carried out in Paris from January 7-9, 2015 in which three French-born assailants murdered a total of 17 people at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine, a kosher grocery store, and in a Paris suburb.

Some critics are calling the January 30 raid in Yemen a botched affair. Insufficient or incorrect intelligence and poor planning, they argue, are responsible for the chaos that erupted when the Navy Seals launched their raid and ended up causing excessive “collateral damage.” Sean Spicer, Trump’s adversarial press secretary, lashed out at anyone — including Arizona Senator John McCain — who calls the raid a failure. In Spicer’s view, such malcontents and naysayers owe an apology to Ryan Owens, the soldier who was killed in the raid: “It’s absolutely a success, and I think anyone that would suggest [the raid is] not a success does a disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens.”

What about the life of Nawar al-Awlaki and the lives of the other women and children whom the soldiers ended up killing? Don’t they deserve an apology? Better than an apology, don’t their families deserve some form of compensation for the loss of their loved ones? Even more to the point, don’t we all deserve an explanation for why the United States is conducting drone strikes and clandestine military operations against the poorest country in the Middle East while supporting the Saudi-let coalition against Houthi rebels and allied military forces?

Again and again, my thoughts return to Nawar, the beautiful child whose all-too-brief life ended when a U.S. commando unit, acting under orders, unleashed their awesome firepower in the course of storming an Al Qaeda outpost in central Yemen. And I can’t help but ask myself, in this scenario, who are the terrorists? How much difference is there between masked militants opening fire on innocent civilians in Paris, Istanbul, or any number of other places in the world, and heavily armed soldiers conducting a surprise attack that led to so many unnecessary deaths and will likely inspire more disillusioned young people to join the ranks of extremists.

Nawar, sadly, is not alone. She is one of countless children killed or wounded in the course of America’s relentless “war on terror” in which, apparently, we are entitled to bomb, shell, sanction, or otherwise immiserate any country or people that somehow threatens our national security — and to do so with absolute impunity. In the case of Yemen, the U.S. is complicit in the ongoing destruction of the country. The biggest culprit, of course, is Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the United Arab Emirates. In 2015, the Saudis intervened in Yemen’s civil war to put down the Houthis, a minority sect within Shi’a Islam, believing that Houthi forces were supported by Saudi Arabia’s arch-rival — Iran. Since the Saudis began their assault, the U.S. has provided intelligence, logistical support, and weapons, in addition to mid-air re-fueling of Saudi bombers. Since 2009, when Obama began his first term, the U.S. has sold more than $115 billion in weapons, including cluster munitions, banned in 2008 under the terms of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty signed by 116 nations. The United States and more than 80 other countries have not agreed to ban the manufacture or deployment of cluster munitions, though in May 2016 the Obama Administration chose to stop selling cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia in response to the growing number of civilian casualties attributed to the use of this indiscriminate weapon.

However one parses the various players in Yemen’s two-year-old conflict and their reasons for continuing the bloodshed, one thing is certain: the people of Yemen are undergoing one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. According to the latest report from UNICEF on conditions in Yemen, the war that began in 2015 (and has been fueled by U.S support for Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign) about 70 percent of the population, or 18.8 million people, are in need of humanitarian assistance. More than 10,000 people have died and 3 million have been displaced as direct results of the conflict. Over one thousand of those deaths have been children like Nawar al-Awlaki. The war has only worsened the already debilitating effects of Yemen’s longstanding poverty, including the near collapse of the county’s healthcare system and a 200 percent increase since 2014 in children suffering from severe acute malnutrition. At least 2.2 million children are in need of urgent care in a country where Saudi coalition aircraft have bombed over fifty-eight hospitals and where access to medical facilities is extremely limited.

In the absence of a functioning healthcare system, safe water and sanitation, and with high rates of malnutrition, many of the children are dying from easily preventable diseases. Heartbreaking photographs of severely malnourished children in Yemen remind me of those I visited in public hospitals in Iraq where years of U.S.- and UK-enforced sanctions led to severe shortages of life-saving drugs and nutrient-poor diets for mothers and their children. Like the children in Yemen, the Iraqi children were wasting away and given palliative care at best. They would die, and their deaths would go unnoticed and unmarked in the countries that bore the lion’s share of responsibility for what Hans Von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, former UN officials, have rightly called genocide.

In a family photo taken before her death, Nawar al-Awlaki is wearing a bright red bow in her hair and holding her smiling face in her hands. The photo will no doubt become a lasting emblem, an iconic moment in this little girl’s life. Other imperishable images come to mind, like the one of Alan Kurdi, the 3-year-old Syrian boy whose body washed up on the shore of a Turkish beach. Alan, his older brother Galip, and their mother Rehan all perished at sea while the family was hoping to find refuge in Canada. Just as wrenching is the image of 5-year-old Samar Hassan, an Iraqi child whose parents were killed by U.S. soldiers in the northern Iraqi town of Tal Afar in 2005. In the photo, Samar is screaming in terror and spattered with the blood of her parents.

Several years ago, I encountered another Iraqi family who suffered the same fate at the hands of U.S. soldiers. While driving from Mosul to Baghdad to spend the holidays with relatives, they came too close to a U.S. military vehicle. The soldiers, following protocol, opened fire. The driver died instantly. The car went up in flames. The father managed to crawl out of the burning vehicle and pull his two young sons to safety. Then he went back to rescue his wife, but it was too late. The soldiers restrained him, knowing he too would die in the flames if they let him go.

When we met in Boston, he was with the younger of his two boys. The child had been severely burned and would need multiple surgeries and skin grafts over the next several years. But the trauma he had suffered, watching his mother burn to death inside the car they had been riding in, will be with him for the rest of his life.

But of course none of this really matters, certainly not to the apparatchiks who devise America’s foreign policy, nor to the generals who implement policy decisions. Civilians killed in a botched raid in Yemen? Entire families blown to pieces by a Hellfire missile? To quote Harold Pinter, British playwright and 2005 Nobel Prize winner in literature:

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.

We can do more than talk about them. We can open our hearts to the suffering of people in places like Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya where the U.S. government and its military, under the pretext of advancing “freedom and democracy,” have committed or abetted crimes against humanity. But even that is not enough. We have a responsibility to speak out against these crimes and the ones who perpetrate them, and to work toward creating an effective, politically motivated, nonviolent resistance to the ongoing and seemingly non-ending imperial wars. Above all, we can respond to the violence of war with a deepening sense of shared humanity and an activism motivated, ultimately, by love.

George Capaccio is a writer and activist living in Arlington, MA. During the years of US- and UK-enforced sanctions against Iraq, he traveled there numerous times, bringing in banned items, befriending families in Baghdad, and deepening his understanding of how the sanctions were impacting civilians. His email is [email protected]. He welcomes comments and invites readers to visit his website: www.georgecapaccio.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen: In the Shadow of Death

Bungling in Yemen: Trump and the Cult of the Action Hero

February 13th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Rather than advancing a political solution that almost everyone agrees is the only way to solve the conflict, it seems the Trump administration’s actions are just adding fuel to the fire. Adam Baron, European Council on Foreign Relations, Feb 7, 2016

The seething bickering in Washington has been going on for over a week. Was the first authorised international raid by the Trump administration, supposedly made over dinner, a success?  There was little denying that the  bells and blood Yemen mission in Bayda province last month was spectacularly deadly, costing the life of a US serviceman, twenty five civilians including nine children and eight women – in addition to al-Qaeda operatives.

The leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Qassim al-Rimi, did not suffer the same fate, but was happy to chortle that President Donald Trump was the “White House’s new fool.”  The foolishness was compounded by revelations that a US citizen, an eight-year old girl and daughter of Anwar al-Awlaqi, was also killed.

The cleric Al-Awlaqi was slain in 2011 by a drone strike on the grounds that he was a key recruiter for al-Qaeda, making him the first US citizen to be killed by his own government without trial since the Civil War.

Even a Yemeni tribal leader was baffled at the sheer muscularity of the raid, featuring Reaper drones, helicopter gunships and elite personnel, suggesting that it would have been easier to simply bomb the place – “but it looks like Trump is trying to say ‘I’m a man of action’.”  It was evident that the president had been addled by a diet of “Steven Seagal movies.”[1]

Networks were drawing up their scorecards on the mission.  NPR came up with its own list, among them the death of US Navy Seal, Ryan Owens, the civilians already mentioned, and a $90 million tilt-rotor aircraft known as an Osprey, destroyed on crash landing.  “The operation, the first authorized by the Trump presidency, also raises serious questions about the planning and decision-making of the current occupant in the Oval-Office, as well as the truthfulness of information coming out of the White House” (NPR, Feb 10).

The technique of such truthfulness – the alt-fact world of tinkering, adjustments and readjustments – was as much a matter of deflection than anything else. White House press secretary Sean Spicer is fast becoming the spinner of the deflected tale and inflated ruse: instead of focusing on the mission’s heroic efforts, critics, he charged, were rubbishing the exploits of a fallen Navy Seal.

“The life of Chief Ryan Owens was done in service to his country and we owe him and his family a great debt for the information that we received during that raid.  I think any suggestion otherwise is a disservice to his courageous life and the actions that he just took.  Full stop.”[2]

Impoverished Yemen has already become a pool of blood, a civil war in large part exacerbated by the continued US support for the Saudi Arabian-led operation against the Shia Houthi rebels.  That particular bombing campaign has been vicious, making a point of targeting critical infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals) along with a generous spread of holy sites.

Some 10,000 people have perished (the number is derived from an August 2016 estimate by the United Nations); millions have been displaced, joining the humanitarian queues in a global supply of refugees.  Famine risks stalking the land, afflicting up to 19 million Yemenis who are said by officials to require humanitarian assistance.

Senator John McCain certainly saw few good signs in the operation, deeming it a failure.  The International Crisis Group saw a gun-crazed buffoon stumbling into conflict.  “The first military actions by the Trump administration in Yemen bode poorly for the prospect of smartly and effectively countering AQAP.”  Even Yemen’s government-in-exile emitted mixed signals regarding the Yakla engagement, wishing to conduct a “reassessment” of the raid.

This reassessment was already taking place moments with the blood still drying.  The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) painted a less than rosy picture despite celebrating the killing of al-Qaeda militants.  “A team designated by the operational task force commander has concluded regrettably that civilian non-combatants were likely to have been killed in the midst of a firefight during a raid in Yemen on January 29.  Casualties may include children.”[3]

According to the Wall Street Journal, initial reports that Yemeni officials had withdrawn their support for such operations was subsequently repudiated.[4]  What was needed in the future, rather, was “more coordination with Yemeni authorities before any operation and there needs to be consideration for our sovereignty.”

The ingredients for a deepening of conflict exist.  Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, insists that the Houthis are an Iranian proxy front, and a terrorist one, no less.  The Houthis, whilst denying the full bloom link with Teheran, take issue with the US support for the Saudi operations to restore President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Add to this a range of Islamist groups of various persuasions, including the Islah Party, with deep Muslim Brotherhood links, and we have a convulsed mess that will need more than an action hero to sort out.  The White House resident, imbued with the brutish spirit of Steven Seagal, will be the perfect recruitment figure for the very organisations Washington wishes to neutralise.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-trump-idUSKBN15M1HP

[2] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/spicer-anyone-who-says-yemen-raid-failed-should-apologize.html

[3] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/admits-civilians-killed-yemen-raid-170202042531151.html

[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/yemen-seeks-tighter-coordination-after-u-s-raid-1486581504

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bungling in Yemen: Trump and the Cult of the Action Hero

EU and IMF Demand More Austerity Measures from Greece

February 13th, 2017 by Robert Stevens

Officials from the European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreed Friday to a take a unified hard line against Greece, as the country’s debt crisis worsens.

The Syriza government must make a further €7 billion payment to its creditors by July or risk default on its entire debt, which remains at a staggering €330 billion.

Greece continues to drown in debt because virtually every cent of the €300 billion in loans received over the last seven years as “bailouts” have been siphoned off to service its debt to banks and financial institutions that continue to draw interest.

For the last two years, the IMF has been involved in a fraught standoff with the EU, insisting that it would not back any further bailout programmes for Greece if they did not include some debt relief structures. The IMF is on record that Greece’s debt is unsustainable and opposes demands from the EU that Athens must meet a primary budget surplus of 3.5 percent. Instead, it calls for Greece to be bled dry more slowly—based on a 1.5 percent primary budget surplus with debt relief factored in so as not to kill the “milch cow”. Addressing an Atlantic Council event Wednesday, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said, “Reforms are absolutely needed. Somebody can ask me the questions three times over, I will still say the same thing.”

The IMF position was reinforced by concerns that if Greece were forced out of the euro zone, it would mean a relaxing of the relentless imposition of massive budget cuts and threaten overall debt repayment by Athens. According to an IMF report leaked last week, Greece’s debt is set to reach 170 percent of gross domestic product by 2020 and 164 percent by 2022, and “become explosive thereafter”, escalating to 275 percent of GDP by 2060.

Friday’s announcement confirms that whatever tactical differences exist on the means to impose austerity on Greece, there are no conflicts over carrying it out. Reuters quoted a senior eurozone official: “There is agreement to present a united front to the Greeks.” Noting that the proposal had yet to be put to Greece, the official said, “What comes out of it, we will see.”

Regarding the substance of the “deal”, Reuters reported, “Officials said the lenders would ask Greece to take 1.8 billion euros worth of new measures until 2018 and another 1.8 billion after 2018, focused on broadening the tax base and on pension cutbacks.” The new cuts represent 2 percent of GDP, which has already fallen by 25 percent since 2010. In human terms, a further €3.6 billion in austerity represents taking another €327 from every man, woman and child in the country.

The agreement came following talks in Brussels Friday between Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch president of the Eurogroup of finance ministers, Pierre Moscovici, EU commissioner for economic affairs, Klaus Regling, head of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)—the EU fund overseeing Greece’s loans in exchange for the austerity programme—and Benoît Coeuré from the European Central Bank.

Later Friday, Euclid Tsakalotos, Greece’s finance minister, arrived for talks with the EU leaders. According to the Athens News Agency, Tsakalotos will discuss the crisis in coming days with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, ESM President Regling and Poul Thomsen, Director of the IMF’s European Department.

The party led by Alexis Tsipras is widely despised for repudiating its pledge to oppose austerity and agreeing to impose the most vicious attacks yet in return for a further €86 billion in loans. The latest poll shows Syriza has the support of just 15 percent of the electorate. Tsakalotos boasted last week that a third of the austerity measures Greece had to impose as part of the current programme have been “totally completed”, another third are “totally agreed”, while the rest are subject to “political negotiation.”

Under conditions in which US President Donald Trump has declared his desire for the break-up of the EU, Greece is once again in the eye of the storm. This week Ted Malloch, Trump’s favoured candidate for US ambassador to Europe, declared that Greece could soon be forced to exit the eurozone and the euro itself was under threat. Malloch told Greek broadcaster Skai TV, “Whether the eurozone survives, I think it’s very much a question that is on the agenda.”

He added, “We have had the exit of the UK, there are elections in other European countries, so I think it’s something that will be determined over the course of the next year, year-and-a-half.”

Trump himself has repeatedly insisted that Greece should withdraw from the euro. On announcing his candidacy for president last year, Trump described Greece’s position as “unsalvageable”. Back in October 2012 he tweeted, “Greece should get out of the euro & go back to their own currency—they are just wasting time.”

Of the divisions between the IMF and EU that seem at this point to have been patched up, Malloch said, “If the [IMF] will not participate in a new bailout that does not include substantial debt relief, and that’s what they are saying, then that, more or less, ensures a collision course with eurozone creditors.”

Germany led the resistance to the IMF proposals for debt relief, and challenged, along with other EU nations including France, Belgium and Sweden, the IMF’s Greek projections at a board meeting Monday.

The Financial Times editorialised, in a swipe primarily aimed at Germany, “The rest of the IMF’s membership should be prepared to overrule the recalcitrant Europeans. The complaints of a self-interested cabal cannot be allowed to get in the way of Greece’s best interests. Eurozone governments have behaved poorly on this issue. They deserve to be defeated.”

Germany responded not by backing down, but with brutal language and further threats against Greece. On Wednesday, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble warned that no relief would be offered on Greece’s mammoth debt—of which a substantial chunk is owed to German banks. “We can’t undertake a debt haircut for a member of the European single currency, it’s ruled out by the Lisbon Treaty,” he said, adding, “For that, Greece would have to exit the currency area.”

He continued, “The pressure on Greece to undertake reforms must be maintained … otherwise they can’t remain in the currency area.”

The joint EU/IMF proposals will be presented to the Syriza government, which is overseeing a social counterrevolution.

More than a third of the population (35.7 percent) are officially in poverty, unemployment stands at 23 percent and 46 percent among youth. Last year alone Syriza slashed another €350 million from the health budget under conditions in which 2.5 million Greeks have no health care coverage. Public spending on higher education was gutted by 75 percent five years ago, with 15 to 25 percent cuts in each subsequent year. An example of the impact of this is at the University of Crete, which had a budget of €17.5 million in 2011, but now operates with just €3.1 million.

Tsipras responded to Berlin’s warning by again solidarising his government with the EU. On Tuesday, he visited Kiev and held a joint press conference with Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko. Calling for continued sanctions against Russia, Tsipras said, “Greece is a member-state of the European Union and, despite the fact that it has a particular economic interest in an immediate resolution of the crisis and the lifting of sanctions that have had an extremely painful effect on the Greek economy, nevertheless we will not fragment European unity.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU and IMF Demand More Austerity Measures from Greece

Trump Wars

February 13th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

While it’s too early in his tenure to draw definitive conclusions about his geopolitical agenda slowly unfolding, what’s known so far is disturbing.

He appears to be the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents – a huge disappointment, though hardly surprising.

The last US president favoring peace over endless war was assassinated for wanting all Pentagon forces out of Vietnam – before things heated up after his elimination.

The lesson of Jack Kennedy’s state-sponsored assassination wasn’t forgotten or ignored by his successors.

Candidate Trump said “I was against (Middle East wars). And I was against (them) very early. And we shouldn’t have been in there. And I think it is probably perhaps the worst mistake we have ever made.”

He called Afghanistan and Libya wars mistakes, after supporting them earlier. At the same time, he said failure to seize Iraq’s oil fields was poor judgment. “In the old days when we won a war, to the victor go the spoils,” he blustered.

He complained about wasting trillions of dollars, turning the Middle East into a mess, instead of using the funds spent to rebuild America. “(W)e don’t have the money because it’s been squandered on so many (wrong) ideas,” he said.

He was silent throughout the campaign and post-inauguration about the illegality of all US wars – preemptively attacking one nation after another posing America no threat.

His January 29 special forces central Yemen raid destroyed Yakla village, killing an unknown number of civilians, estimates ranging from 16 to 59. It’s unclear what the mission accomplished other than massacring noncombatants.

US-led so-called “coalition” warplanes continue attacking Syrian and Iraqi infrastructure and government targets. No cooperation with Russia so far exists in combating terrorism, no discussion so far on this key issue.

During a weekend phone call with US-installed puppet Afghan president Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, a Kabul official briefed on the discussion said Trump will consider sending more combat troops to the country – instead of ending America’s longest war.

US terror-bombing continues. Helmand province raids last week killed at least 18 civilians, injuring others, according to a UN inquiry – mostly defenseless women and children mercilessly slaughtered like so many times before by US aerial and ground operations.

Bush/Cheney, Obama and now Trump’s war is responsible for virtual daily civilian deaths, utter chaos and appalling human misery.

Defense Secretary Mattis calls Russia America’s top threat. False! Secretary of State Tillerson warned about being “clear-eyed about our relationship with Russia,” saying it “poses a danger…” False!

“It has invaded Ukraine…” False! It “t(ook) Crimea, and supported Syrian forces that brutally violate the laws of war.” False, other than aiding Syria combat terrorism at the request of its government.

“Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia.” Absolutely false!

Does Trump share these views, despite saying he “respect(s)” Putin, said “he’s doing a great job,” praised his “intelligence (and) no-nonsense way,” believes he and Russia’s leader will “get along very well,” while calling bilateral relations “horrible,” and claiming “there’s nothing I can think of that I’d rather do than have Russia friendly, as opposed to the way they are right now…”

Trump inherited America’s imperial agenda, its aggressive wars in multiple theaters, terrorist foot soldiers his predecessors created and supported, a bloated defense budge he vowed to increase, and the Pentagon’s empire of bases, used as launching pads for naked aggression.

Will he continue America’s warrior tradition or go another way? Early evidence isn’t encouraging.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new 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
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Wars

Background

Greece has warned the International Monetary Fund and Germany to stop playing with fire a day after Athens and its creditors failed to reach a deal on the country’s debt crisis.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras told his party that the IMF and German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble should stop playing with Athens’ debt. He said a solution would be found while urging the IMF to revise its forecast for technical level discussions to continue. On Friday, Athens and its international creditors failed to reach an agreement on the country’s debt relief and budget targets. The troika of Greek creditors wants Athens to come up with a strategy to repay its over seven-billion-dollar debt that’s due this summer before releasing another batch of bailout loans. 

Note: The Troika is the triumvirate formed by the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Press TV Interview with economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig 

PressTV: What is your take on what has just happened in the past few days between the Troika, Germany and the Greek Government?

PK: My first reaction and advice to Greece is to default on the 7 billion euros. The second thought is – default with a strategy to exit the euro and if necessary the EU.

Greece today has a debt of close to 300% of GDP. This is almost triple of what it was in 2007 / 2008 when the ‘crisis’ began. This debt is totally unsustainable and can never be paid back, less so under constant austerity programs imposed by the IMF and the troika as a whole (IMF, European Central Bank, European Commission).

Greece today is totally mortgaged so to speak – almost every public service and public asset was transferred – most clandestinely – to the European Stabilization Fund in Brussels – to be sold off at fire sales prices. These public assets include public utilities, such as airports, highways, water supply and sanitation services, electricity, even public beaches, hospitals and schools.

This is THE opportunity for Greece to get out of their quagmire.

Get back her own currency – regain her sovereignty as an independent country with an independent monetary and banking system. With public banking that works for the Greek economy – and no longer for the Wall Street globalized banksters.

This should have been done a long time ago, but it’s never too late.

PressTV: Why do you think Greece has not done yet what you suggest? They must have economists who come to the same conclusions.

PK: That’s the million-dollar question I keep asking myself since quite a while. Yes, they do have good economists, and I know of some who have quit working for the government under these circumstances.

I have a few speculative explanations. First, it is possible that the Greek leadership was threatened by the troika; perhaps some individuals were physically threatened, which would not be unusual for those who pull the strings in Washington and Brussels. It is also possible that the ‘nominally socialist’ government has been threatened with ‘regime change’ – that could indeed be by brute force, à la Ukraine…especially since Greece is hosting a strategically important NATO base in Europe.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greece – A New Standoff with the Troika, Germany and the IMF

Ahead of Wednesday’s final European Parliament vote on the Canada-EU trade deal (CETA), a new report shows the devastating effects the agreement could have on EU member states whose citizens and courts block harmful mines. A lawsuit over the controversial Roşia Montană mine in Romania highlights governments’ vulnerability to expensive investor-state challenges attacking member state decisions to protect the environment and people’s health.

A day before the European Parliament votes on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a new report co-published by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), ‘Gold-digging with investor-state lawsuits’, warns against the trade deal’s facilitation of multi-billion investor claims. The case study focuses on the controversial Roşia Montană gold mine, the suspended development of which has led Canadian mining company Gabriel Resources to sue the Romanian state under the terms of agreements with investor rights similar to CETA.

The proposed cyanide-based goldmine in the Romanian town of Roşia Montană has faced strong community resistance due to its negative impact on the environment, the local economy and the region’s cultural heritage. It is on hold after Romanian courts invalidated several required permits.

Over this, the project’s majority owner Gabriel Resources is suing Romania at a World Bank-based international investment tribunal, seeking a reported US$ 4 billion in compensation for the alleged failure of the country to issue the necessary permits.

In their new report, CEO, MiningWatch Romania, the Independent Centre for the Protection of the Environment and Alburnus Maior – a community organisation from Roşia Montană – compare the mining company’s claim with the legal provisions under CETA. The case study finds that the deal’s far-reaching investor rights could lead to a flood of similar lawsuits by North American companies against the EU and its member states, including US investors with subsidiaries in Canada.

Mining Watch Romania campaigner Roxana Pencea Brădățan said:

“The battle over Roşia Montană shows how investor privileges in trade agreements can be used to undermine democracy and the rule of law. Romanians opposed the mine and our courts have declared it illegal.

“But Gabriel’s investor-state claim could now force the government to open the mine anyway, or to make Romanian taxpayers fork out billions in compensation. If there ever was a wake-up call to reject the parallel legal system for corporations that is also part of CETA, this is it!”

Corporate Europe Observatory’s trade policy campaigner and author of the report Pia Eberhardt added:

“CETA’s VIP rights for foreign investors are essentially a massive corporate coup. They will newly empower tens of thousands of corporations to claim vast amounts of public money and to bully decision-makers.

“At a time when the number and size of investor attacks against countries is on the increase, it is just irresponsible to back more corporate privileges by including them in an EU-wide trade deal.”

The report’s publishers are calling on members of the European Parliament to stand with the millions of people across Europe who oppose the parallel legal system for corporations and reject CETA.

Contact:

Pia Eberhardt, Corporate Europe Observatory, [email protected],

Roxana Pencea Brădățan, Mining Watch Romania, [email protected]
  • Read the full report (as of 14/02/2017, 00:00 CET) here: ‘Gold-digging with investor-state lawsuits
  • Following the signing of CETA by EU and Canadian governments in October 2016 and controversial votes in several European Parliament committees, Wednesday’s vote in the Parliament’s Strasbourg plenary will be the final step in the EU-level ratification of CETA. If Parliament approves CETA, large parts of the deal will enter into force as of spring 2017. The full agreement will only be implemented after ratification by parliaments in all 28 EU member states, including those where CETA is highly controversial and will face referenda.
  • Read more about the investor-state lawsuit which Gabriel Resources has filed against the Romanian government at the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/31).
  • Key findings of the report include:
  • To operate the proposed Roşia Montană goldmine, a total of 240,000 tons of toxic cyanidewould be used, which equals lethal doses for 600,000,000,000 adults.
  • The mine would leave behind a waste lake of cyanide-contaminated water the size of 420 football fields – much larger than the toxic dump at Romanian Baia Mare, where a cyanide spill in 2000 caused a devastating environmental disaster.
  • The mine would destroy 18th and 19th century houses and some of the world’s most valuable ancient gold mining galleries, proposed as UNESCO World Heritage.
  • A total of ten permits and plans required by Gabriel Resources to develop the mine were irrevocably annulled by Romanian courts due to a lack of compliance with environmental laws or evidence of administrative abuse by different authorities.
  • Mid-2015, Gabriel Resources filed an investor-state claim against Romania, arguing the country breached its bilateral investment treaties with Canada and the UK.
  • The company reportedly seeks up to US$4 billion in compensation for the gold it is unable to extract in Roșia Montană – equivalent to 2% of the Romanian economy.
  • Gabriel Resources’ legal costs are backed by Wall Street hedge fund Tenor in return for a claim of the spoils.
  • CETA contains largely the same far-reaching investor rights used in the Gabriel Resources claim: fair and equitable treatment of investors, the protection against discrimination, and the protection against direct and indirect expropriation.
  • CETA would increase the risk of challenges in the mining, oil and gas sectors, where Canadian investment is significant. Canadian mining corporations are already engaged in controversial natural resource projects across the EU and the industry is celebrating CETA as a “landmark” agreement with “major implications for miners”.
  • Four out of five US-based corporations with EU operations (41,811) could use CETA to attack the EU and its member states if they structure their investment through Canadian subsidiaries.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Toxic Mines or Costly Lawsuits: How the CETA Trade Agreement Would “Corner Governments”

Trump and the New Iran Gambit

February 13th, 2017 by Peter Koenig

Did Trump cheat us all with his campaign promises and his succinct ‘to the point’ Inaugural Address? Or did he just deceive some of us, some of the time, and the rest will be taken care of by a more or less sophisticated trickery? – A gambit, one of which is Iran?

After all, we know how he has been elected. Among the ruses used was a distinct scheme of mind manipulation, targeting specific voter groups in swing states, just as many as necessary to swing the state in his favor. This allowed him to capture a large majority of electoral votes, making him the winner, but running almost 3 million popular votes behind Hillary (“Mind Manipulations” to Influence Election Results

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mind-manipulations-to-influence-election-results/5566894).

By no means is this a plea for Hillary. With her in the White House we might already be in WWIII, I mean the nuclear version of it. But it shows that the choice Americans were given was rigged from the very beginning, as it usually is. It was either ‘business as usual’ or ‘business as usual – plus’. I don’t dare guessing what we have now. But for sure it ain’t going to be peace for America and the rest of the world anytime soon. Not by a long shot. Not even near the prospects Trump put out when he said he would like to make peace with Russia, have Russia as a partner, rather than an enemy, and he would put an end to interventions in foreign countries. He specifically pointed to Syria, where he would not insist on a ‘regime change’, but rather fight efficiently and in collaboration with Mr. Putin, Islamic terrorism, i.e. ISIS, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and whatever other names they give themselves.

The picture today looks quite different. Although, Mr. Trump said from the very beginning he didn’t like Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran, and that he would like to rip it up. But why would he want to do this? First, he assured his electorate no more interfering in foreign countries – which for many Americans was the reason for voting Trump; and second, he knows that this deal is not just an “Obama Deal”.

It is called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, France, Russia, UK, US plus Germany (5+1) and the European Union. It’s not so easy to undo. – Why did he say it? – Perhaps because he wanted the ultra-conservative neocon Jewish vote? –  And even more so, express his alliance with superstar Zionist Netanyahu?

During the campaign, when the controversies of Trump’s pleas and promises were so confusing, contradictory and chaotic, people laughed and didn’t take him seriously. The point is – nobody connected the dots. The departure dot increasingly looks like Netanyahu and his Zionist network, its extended arm in the US Homeland, AIPAC. The Zionist goal is Israel’s dominion over the Middle East from the Euphrates to the Nile. Trump amplified this commitment by his repeated statements that America will always defend and support her chief ally, Israel – Israel Über Alles – which sounded more like ‘Israel First’. America First is but a ruse to please the masses, utterly deceived by Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’.

Then Trump appointed Steve Bannon as his personal advisor and White House Chief Strategist. Mr. Bannon is a neoliberal Zionist, the extended brain (sic) of Netanyahu, so to speak. Bannon was a Goldman Sachs banker (go figure!) and the chief editor of the ultra-conservative “Breitbart News”.

And Why did he sell out to Israel – even more so than his predecessors? – Perhaps because he is a businessman who knows where the money is and who manages it – from the FED, to Wall Street, to the Basle-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – the Central Bank of all Central Banks –  those who manipulate the western monetary system and its banksters – and everything in between.

Peace with Russia, is it still a priority?

The Deep State handlers of the Pentagon and its multitrillion-dollar military-security complex do not want peace with Russia. They want and need war for their milk-cow USA to survive.

Trump knows that. In the meantime, he has already watered down his peace pledge with Russia. He still says he prefers a good relation with Putin than a bad one, but says also he doesn’t know whether he will get along with Putin; Putin was not a friend. Despite the many links Trump has to Russia, he makes sure the Putin haters understand that there is not going to be an alliance of roses with Russia. Though he did come forward in a half-hearted defense of Putin, when he replied to Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, slandering Putin as a murderer, ‘We [the US] have many murderers. Do you think we are so innocent?’

Trump wants to keep the door to Putin open. Remember, one of Washington’s brandmarks is always dancing on several weddings.

Let’s see how this works. The next dot is Iran – like in Iran-bashing to justify a war and to please the war industry. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis proclaimed without any evidence – or rather all evidence to the contrary –  that “Iran is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism”. State sponsored terrorism is a red flag for fear- and war-mongering, a propaganda tool not to be missed by the MSM.

Trumps National Security Advisor Michael Flynn uttered similar lies on several occasions. Trump himself said that Iran is the number One terrorist state. Pentagon voices indicate that the White House is also considering listing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – Iran’s main defense entity – as a terrorist organization. If this happens, any move of the IRGC may become a false flag, potentially justifying an all-out aggression on Iran.

The presstitute will invariably pick-up on these ‘false news’ and repeat them at nauseatum, so the public at large in America and the rest of the western world is indoctrinated and mentally prepared for an attack on Iran. A false flag could even trigger a nuclear attack, thus helping Israel to get a step closer to regional hegemony, and Washington to world hegemony. That’s their pipedream.

Not so fast. There is the solid alliance of the axis Russia – China – Iran. Iran is the most important partner of Russia and Syria in fighting Islamic terrorism, made in USA. Iran is also in the long run the stabilizing factor in the Middle East. For the Washington hegemon, the Middle East is not to become a stable region. All to the contrary, it must be chaotic in order to be controlled.  Russia and China would most likely not stand by idly, if Iran was to be attacked. This might be the moment of a direct confrontation between US / NATO forces with Russia and possibly also with China.

With false accusations of China’s aggressive behavior against Japan’s, Vietnam’s and the (alleged) Philippines territorial claims in the South China Sea, China is already framed for an attack. Remember, Washington needs a big war to sustain its sick and faltering economy. WWIII, nuclear or not, triggered in the Middle East might expand north rapidly to engulf Europe in a devastating conflict, the third time in hundred years.

This is exacerbated by a rapid and massive US military build-up. President Trump called on the Pentagon to expand US military power, step up violence in Syria, and to prepare the nuclear arsenal for war with “near-peer competitors”—a reference to nuclear-armed China and Russia—and “regional challengers,” such as Iran. This despite his earlier promises for a future non-intervention policy in foreign lands.

In addition, on the northern fronts NATO’s ongoing and steadily advancing troop and armor movements along the Russian borders, are encircling Moscow like a closing noose.

Trump has asked Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, to come up within 30 days with a plan of a significantly expanded military strike force, including the renewal of the US nuclear arsenal – to be a full-fledged strike force by 2022. The cost is not clear, but roughly estimated at about US$ 100 billion per year, in addition to the current about US$ 600 billion official budget. This would be in line with Obama’s plan of renewing the nuclear arsenal at a cost of about 1 trillion in ten years. No doubt, the true cost of the US military-security spending with all the associated industries and services is already today in the trillions.

Wars continue to be in the air over the coming years of the Trump Administration. In fact, looking back over the last 16 years – in 2000 Bush was the right man for the Deep State, those who pull the strings, to start the mess in the Middle East by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; all under false pretenses, as we know in the meantime. But, by the time the public found out, it was too late.

Then followed Obama, the smooth spoken, intelligent African American (by his looks only), who would bring change, as in “Yes, We Can”, convincing hundreds of millions around the world of a new era of peace. In anticipation of his peacemaking, he was bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize, before he even moved a finger towards peace. Following orders from above, disregarding the Nobel Committee, he stepped up the two wars left behind by George Bush and started new wars to end his Presidency on 20 January 2017with seven active wars at his credit – and millions of people killed; tens of thousands by his personal drone-killing approvals.

Follows Donald Trump, a businessman through and through, who promised peace and harmonious relations with Russia, non-intervention in foreign countries – and to bring back jobs to “Make America Great Again”. A new slogan, a new public deception, a new approach by a new king without clothes. Thus, has chosen the “Deep State”, or at least part of the Deep State. While Trump is seeking world dominion through his allies, the FED and Wall street banksters, he seems not to neglect the weapons industry – by preparing for an arms race that could go ballistic – and nuclear – anytime.

An attack on Iran could well be carried out by Israel, backed by Washington. Under the arrangement between Washington and Israel, an Iranian retaliation against Israel would be equal to an aggression on the US, hence engaging the Pentagon, leading to a direct confrontation with Russia and possibly China; the beginning of WWIII, being played out initially in the Middle East, then extended northwards, where NATO is ready to attack Russia.

Trump’s aggressive Executive Orders for the Pentagon, the stepped-up hostilities in Yemen and planned in Syria, plus putting Iran in the cross-hairs with unfounded anti-Iran slander propaganda, increases the tension level throughout the world. But would Trump actually trigger an all-destructive WWIII? – One that would put the annihilation of humanity as we know it at stake?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump and the New Iran Gambit

There are some well known stages that mark the path towards totalitarianism – and one indicator that we are strolling down this dangerous path is the UK government’s Investigatory Powers Act.

One of the principal purposes of the IPA is to records the phone calls, internet browsing records and other data traffic of every person in the country, just in case it comes in useful later.  Namely – to create an internal surveillance system. This was quite rightly judged to be illegal by The Court of Justice of the European Union, although the government is yet to meaningfully respond to the ruling. One can only surmise that our impending exit from the jurisdiction of the CJEU will mean that any protection afforded by the judgement will be short lived, if it ever materialises at all.

Apparently undeterred by this small setback, the government now appears to be considering new, even more oppressive, legislation which would easily fulfil a key requirement on any aspiring dictator’s to do list – that of control of the press.

Proposals for a new ‘Espionage Bill’ are quietly being considered by the UK Law Commission and would replace official Secrets Acts dating back to 1911, but they go much further than that in their scope.

Their recommendations, due to be finalised by April 3rd, are contained in a consultation paper entitled ‘Protection of Official Data’ which pointedly targets those who both communicate and obtain leaked information, classifying them as spies liable to spend up to 14 years in prison. Crucially it also seeks to remove the statutory public interest defence for finding, handling and releasing such information.

Anyone publishing or even re-publishing already leaked material that is “capable of benefiting a foreign power” would be a crime. Of course that definition would be open to a wide interpretation by anyone seeking to hush up something they wanted kept quiet, for example it’s been speculated that this will include any information about the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.

Journalists would be walking a virtual tightrope with little confidence about the implications of revealing any information they had obtained through unofficial channels. This flies in the face of previous guidance and legislation on the fair treatment of whistle blowers, meaning that hackers, journalists, NGOs and even elected politicians could now be treated in the same way as foreign agents, even if the information they reveal is in the public interest.

Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of free expression campaign group Index on Censorship, said:

“The proposed changes are frightening and have no place in a democracy, which relies on having mechanisms to hold the powerful to account. It is unthinkable that whistle blowers and those to whom they reveal their information should face jail for leaking and receiving information that is in the public interest.”

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who also lambasted The Investigatory Powers Act as something that would make most despotic regimes green with envy, said of these new proposals:

“It is alarming that such a far-reaching proposed reform of laws which could be used to jail whistle blowers and journalists should have been drafted without any adequate consultation with free speech organisations.”

Despite claims from the Commission to have “consulted widely”, The National Union of Journalists have said they were told nothing and were never contacted. The Commission themselves have confirmed that most British organisations concerned with human rights and free expression have not been involved. This includes the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Centre for Investigative Reporting, Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, Article 19, Open Democracy, Privacy International, Index On Censorship and the writers group PEN. They did however seek advice from MI5 and MI6 as well as selected media corporations.

Ironically, Parliament itself has often been the source of many a leaked document.  Indeed it’s seemed in recent years that leaks have become the preferred method of announcing government proposals, to test the water and perhaps reduce the shock of unpopular legislation when it’s officially announced. This proposed bill itself is only being discussed now due to what could easily be characterised as a leak. Were this legislation to be in force at the moment I might be treated to a night in the cells, or worse, simply for writing about it.

That threat of jail can only serve to effectively curtail any investigative journalist who values his or her freedom. Investigative journalism by its very nature involves discovering something that someone doesn’t want to be found. The mere act of happening across some information in the course of researching a story, or speaking to a source could see journalists arrested and prosecuted, or at the very least threatened with as much if they don’t keep quiet. Official government stamped announcements will become the only safe sources of news, regardless of its veracity or the agenda of those behind it. Effectively we will have a state controlled press.

It’s clear that we’re seeing both an orchestrated attack on the rights of a free media, along with a more subversive undermining of faith in news reporting across all platforms. In many ways the discussions around so called fake news also plays into this scenario. This isn’t a coincidence and it would not be surprising if similar legislation is drafted in the USA before too long. If Nixon could be brought down by two determined journalists exposing the Watergate scandal, how paranoid is the Trump administration likely to be? Assuming it’s humanly possible to be more paranoid than Trump.

An unfettered and trusted media is part of the bedrock of a free and democratic society, even if both those concepts are at times questionable in themselves. We mustn’t allow shady, oppressive legislation to drive real journalism into the shadows. As we all know, knowledge is power and a free press should keep that power with the people, where it belongs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on British Journalists who Publish “Leaked Information” will be Jailed Under New Tory Legislation

Planetary Lockdown, Geoengineering and “The Deep State”

February 13th, 2017 by Elana Freeland

Just as, at the dawning of a new geological era, the whole world collapses in a gigantic crack, new mountains rise up while gaping abysses open up, and new plains and seas take shape, so will the present structure of Europe be capsized in an immense cataclysm . . . The only chance for Germany to resist this pressure will be to seize the initiative and take control of the inevitable upheaval from which will come a new dawning of history. – Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks / Voice of Destruction, 1939

 We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it? – Carl Sagan to Charlie Rose, May 27, 1996

The race to control space began in 1945 when Operation Paperclip [1] brought committed Nazi engineers, technicians, and scientists to the United States to engineer their wonders during the Hegelian ruse known to history as the Cold War. One example among the 10,000 Nazis who sought refuge in the U.S. was Arthur Rudolph, former colleague of Wernher von Braun, aerospace engineer and NASA director of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Rudolph had been director of the Mittelwerk underground rocket factory nicknamed “Dante’s Inferno” where 52,000 prisoners turned out 6,000 V-2 rockets. From 1951 to 1961, Rudolph worked for Martin Marietta in Waterton, Colorado; in 1995, Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed Corporation to form Lockheed Martin. Initially in charge of R&D for the Pershing missile, Rudolph became an American citizen, headed the Saturn project for NASA, and received the Distinguished Service Award. In 1984, he renounced his U.S. citizenship and returned to Germany, having faithfully served the transfer of the Third Reich to the United States.

Thus it was through the military-industrial complex that the Trojan horse of amoral, cryptic Nazism entered the resource-rich United States. In short order, the National Security Act, formation of the CIA, and Cold War followed. Rockets, satellites, computers, MK-ULTRA brain engineering, and exotic propulsion craft thrust the 20th century into the 21st century of a new millennium.

The Space Age—Star Trek’s “final frontier”—began with the necessity of dominating airspace, the near space around the Earth, and weather. Military research into weather control was kept quiet throughout the Cold War while dire warnings about a “little ice age,” “greenhouse gases,” “desertification,” then “extreme weather” and “global warming” were released to keep the dollars flowing.

Now, it is the more neutral “climate change” accompanied by showcase international conferences packed with PhDs recommending expensive “solutions” under the rubric of geoengineering, the intentional human-directed manipulation of the Earth’s climatic systems (Stanford Environmental Law Journal) to make weather into a “force multiplier” [2] for the seven military operations discussed in my previous book Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth: (1) Weather modification, environmental / geophysical modification, (3) electromagnetic manipulation, (4) military full spectrum dominance, (5) biological manipulation, (6) intelligence / surveillance, and (7) detection / obscuration of exotic propulsion technology. [3]

“Climate control”

The Federal Government has been involved for over 30 years in a number of aspects of weather modification, through activities of both the Congress and the executive branch. Since 1947, weather modification bills pertaining to research support, operations, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, establishment of panels and committees, and international concerns have been introduced in the Congress. There have been hearings on many of these proposed measures, and oversight hearings have also been conducted on pertinent ongoing programs. [4]

Infiltration and co-optation, compartmentalization, confidentiality agreements, backroom deals, threats, bribes, skewed research, packed peer review committees, embedded international media—one can only marvel at the legerdemain and deception it takes to steer international conferences, committees, publishing houses, news outlets, and university and elementary school curriculi so as to construct a vast global house of cards built on turning carbons, the building blocks of all of life, into the cause célèbre to explain away the fact that our atmosphere and weather are being modified by the military’s manipulation of the ionosphere. Besides, carbon taxes and emissions trading meant making more money off of the weaponized environment. It is quite the con, given that CO2 is not far above the minimum to sustain plant life [5] and nations should be increasing CO2 instead of being penalized for the CO2 they have. [6]

But then, the emperor wears no clothes. The first congressional report on geoengineering in the U.S. House of Representatives did not appear until October 2010 just before the moratorium against geoengineering issued by the 10th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in Nagoya, Japan was about to appear—a moratorium the U.S. was not planning to ratify. [7] Were the delegates from 193 nations aware that geoengineering had been going on in the U.S. and other NATO nations for well over a decade? Four months after the Nagoya moratorium, a geoengineered earthquake struck Japan.

Since the moratorium, embedded media have ramped up weather confusion in the public mind, blaming cars and industrial pollutants while assiduously ignoring the greatest polluters and propagandists of all: the over-inflated American military and the military-industrial-intelligence complex that runs it. In 2013, the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that solar radiation management (SRM) was already underway: “If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [8]

Greenhouse gas forcing is the least of our worries. What about the rogue military transforming our atmosphere for its own full spectrum dominance agendas?

Now and then, scientists like CERN particle physicist Jasper Kirby [9] and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center heliophysicist Douglas E. Rowland—“There’s different kinds of chemtrails as you probably know” [10]—leak a tantalizing tidbit about what is really going on, but it is tacitly ignored by mainstream media. An Italian senator calls for declassification of chemtrail documents, [11] a Cyprus agriculture and environment minister pledges to look into chemtrails [12]—and then, nothing.

Over and over again, government agencies near the hub of the “climate change” thrust (NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc.) are caught lying, but embedded media roll on. NASA proclaimed July 2012 the hottest month on record and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center agreed: the July 2012 temperature average of 77.6ºF was 3.3ºF above the 20th century average and 0.2ºF above the previously warmest July of 1936 (during the Dust Bowl years). However, when meteorologist Anthony Watts checked NOAA data, he found that July 1936 had been reinstated as the hottest month on record. “You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote.

“This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately … This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.” [13]

David L. Lewis, PhD, a former microbiologist for the EPA’s Office of Research & Development, wrote in Science For Sale: How the Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits (Skyhorse Publishing, 2014) that EPA leadership consistently “mishandles science.” One incident occurred in 2003, when former Acting Assistant Administrator Henry L. Longest II made midlevel EPA managers read management consultant Margaret Wheatley’s Turning to One Another, urging environmentalists “to abandon Western science in favor of ‘New Science’ … the ‘space of not knowing’ and the ‘abyss.’ While passing through the abyss, new scientists shed their religious beliefs and sexual inhibitions, then turn to one another.” [14] Managerial candidates then had to fill out a confidential questionnaire about their promiscuity, religion, morality, and willingness to keep secrets. (What exactly was the EPA up to in the Bush II years?)

Add murder to propaganda, manipulation of international convocations, requiring sexual histories to forge bonds of secrecy, and blackmailing nations with geoengineered weather threats. U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) fought hard for HR2977, the 2001 Space Preservation Act that over the next few years was stalled in committee after committee before its final death. On December 19, 2007, Kucinich’s 52-year-old younger brother was found dead; the following year on November 12, his 48-year-old sister died of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Coincidence, or payback?

On August 9, 2010, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska) was investigating HAARP (see image right) at the request of Alaskan bush pilot Theron “Terry” Smith when their aircraft crashed, killing Stevens and Smith but not NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe, who was also onboard. Coupled with the fact that Smith’s son-in-law had been killed just days before in a C-17 crash at Elmendorf Air Force Base, “accident” or “coincidence” seems highly unlikely. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed the crash on the “pilot’s temporary unresponsiveness for reasons that could not be established.” [15]

Strange purges are underway. Canada has dismissed 2,000 scientists and hundreds of programs that monitored smoke stack emissions, food inspections, oil spills, water quality, climate change, etc. while closing seven of the eleven Fisheries and Oceans libraries:

… a document classified as “secret” that was obtained by Postmedia News mentioned “culling of materials” as a main activity in the reduction of libraries … reports have emerged of books being strewn across floors and even piled into dumpsters. [16]

Thus after decades of subterfuge, manipulation, and one extreme weather “experiment” after another in full view of nations whose citizens no longer believed in their own perceptions but instead sought media weather interpretations—as I write, Hurricanes Matthew and tropical storm Nicole are making profits for disaster capitalists along the Florida-Georgia-Carolinas Atlantic coast—came the globalist move to subject nations to the will of the U.S.-controlled United Nations, now that a dependable weather weapon was at last at hand.

A UN power shift

The participation of the U.S. and China is significant, as the two account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement goes into force once 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions officially sign … Parties to the agreement will still have to go through the process of joining the agreement, which for most will require processes of approval in their home countries … [17]

On Earth Day 2016, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate agreement was signed. It had been hammered out over the course of multiple conferences culminating in the COP21 in Paris November 30-December 11, 2015. The 2011 UN Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa had attempted to include an International Tribunal of Climate Justice provision, [18] but by COP21, it had disappeared.

It was all quite the show. Climate mouthpieces were carefully chosen—the IPCC, geoengineers David Keith and Ken Caldeira, prestigious universities, embedded NGOs, government agencies, the World Bank and IMF, and of course the usual Wall Street-London deep pockets. Scriptwriters worked overtime on the fate of the Earth as cameras panned in on lightning flashes, rolling storms, deluges and droughts, crying babies, hospital emergency rooms filled to overflowing … The UN was to be tasked with vast new tax and regulatory powers in the name of keeping global warming below 2°C.

A quieter UN meeting had taken place in New York City two months before COP21: the Sustainable Development Summit concentrating on UN Agenda 2030 (Agenda 21 by a new name) that would coordinate with the carbons scam to turn nationhood into a mere address:

To cheers, applause and probably a tinge of relief, the 17 global goals that will provide the blueprint for the world’s development over the next 15 years were ratified by UN member states in New York on Friday. After speeches from Pope Francis and the Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, and songs from Shakira and Angelique Kidjo, the ambitious agenda – which aims to tackle poverty, climate change and inequality for all people in all countries – was signed off by 193 countries at the start of a three-day UN summit on sustainable development … The global goals summit continues until Sunday, after when all eyes will be on the UN climate talks in November. Asked if the goals will be scuppered without a strong deal in Paris [COP21], Mogens Lykketoft, the president of the UN general assembly, was hesitant, saying leaders were making more commitments than they were in previous COP meetings. ‘From what we know and hope for, we will be approaching a better deal.’ [19]

Weather warfare technology was the teeth “sustainable development” Agenda 2030 had been waiting for (and surely why developing nations had valiantly attempted to include an International Tribunal of Climate Justice). Immediately after the two conferences, the Dutch Defence Joint Meteorological Group (JMG) took the lead “in providing weather forecasts for every exercise or deployment of [NATO’s] Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).” [20] And if you think the VJTF is only “forecasting” weather …

To be fair, some academics do ponder the naked emperor. How exactly is CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere “using an infrastructure we don’t have and with technology that won’t work on the scale we need, and finally to store it in places we can’t find” [21]? Others recognize that the carbon solution is a ploy for raking in disaster capitalist cash: $90 trillion in energy infrastructure investments, $1 trillion green bond market, multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market, $391 billion climate
finance industry. [22] The UN Green Climate Fund alone will clear $100 billion per year, purportedly to support concrete carbons mitigation in developing countries. Should we take bets on if the money will ever make it to the developing countries after being filtered through multilateral and private banks like World Bank and Deutsche Bank? After all, the naked emperor is not known for keeping his promises.

Traditional bureaucratic foundations like Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie were said to be giving way to “philanthrocapitalism,” a muscular new approach to charity in which the presumed entrepreneurial skills of billionaires would be applied to the world’s most pressing challenges … [23]

Too late, the public is awakening to the dismal fact that its institutions, agencies, universities, laboratories, and courts obey the very powers that have milked public assets dry. Worker and food safety, gone. Bill of Rights, gone. Environmental protections, gone. Soon, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or facsimiles thereof will lock in corporate feudalism under an oligarchic world rule. Billionaire members of the Good Club [24] are establishing “brain institutes” to support the Brain Initiative and its neuroscientists in service to a Transhumanist future. [25]

“Science is broken”

For two decades, independent scientists and the science-minded have been attempting to sound the alarm regarding what is going on in our skies and in low-earth orbit while university labs and burgeoning university scientists buckle to military grants dedicated to weaponizing everything under the Sun, if not the Sun itself. Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock relates how CIA-funded consultants contacted him to ask two questions: If we control someone else’s climate, would they know about it? and Would climate experts be able to determine if another nation was attempting to control the climate? The CIA—not exactly known for being forthcoming—has funded multiple grants targeting weather domination (including HAARP via minions like Raytheon), including two February 2015 National Academy of Sciences reports: “Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration” (154 pages) and “Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth” (234 pages). [26]

The peer review system has been co-opted, favoring some theories and scientists and banishing others to the outer darkness of non-publication and stonewalled careers. Nobel Laureate biologist Sydney Brenner:

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals … it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organizations making money out of it. [27]

“Powerful orthodoxy against a marginalized heterodoxy” is how Charles Eisenstein describes the opposition to cutting-edge Electric Universe scientists:

If you have faith in the soundness of our scientific institutions, you will assume that the dissidents are marginalized for very good reason: their work is substandard. If you believe that the peer review process is fair and open, then the dearth of peer-reviewed citations for [Electric Universe] research is a damning indictment of their theory. And if you believe that the corpus of mainstream physics is fundamentally correct, and that science is progressing closer and closer to truth, you will be highly skeptical of any major departure from standard theories … Can we trust scientific consensus? Can we trust the integrity of our scientific institutions? Perhaps not. Over the last few years, a growing chorus of insider critics have been exposing serious flaws in the ways that scientific research is funded and published, leading some to go so far as to say, ‘Science is broken.’ [28]

Between 1973 and 2013, the decision-making as to which scientific papers merited publication and which didn’t was controlled by six major publishers (ACS; Reed Elsevier; Sage; Taylor & Francis; Springer; and Wiley-Blackwell), all in the back pocket of Big Pharma and the medical industry:

’As long as publishing in high impact factor journals is a requirement for researchers to obtain positions, research funding, and recognition from peers, the major commercial publishers will maintain their hold on the academic publishing system,’ added [Professor Vincent Lariviere, lead author of the study from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science]. [29]

Then there’s the danger quotient far beyond loss of career for scientists working on classified projects. In the early days of the “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) now culminating in the Space Fence, two dozen scientists and experts working for Marconi and Plessey Defence Systems either disappeared or died under “mysterious circumstances.” Most were microbiologists. The scientist death toll continued into the 1990s and post-9/11. [30] Now, the targets appear to be naturopathic doctors and health-minded MDs peering behind the curtains of Big Pharma vaccinations, autism, and cancer-for-profit. [31]

Next stop: The SSS Space Fence

We are a long way from President Kennedy’s Space Age dreams and resolution to put an end to chemical polluters and the destruction of soil and biodiversity. Now, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University, and with the stroke of a presidential pen on Thanksgiving 2015, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (HR2262) a/k/a Space Act of 2015 thumbs its nose at the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, erasing whatever fleeting separation was left between the military and corporations bent on making profits from space-based mining of asteroids and the helium-3 isotope on the Moon.

For those in North America, the Clean Air Act has been amended and the North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan signed in June 2016 by Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The “sustainable future” for these three nations appears to be as a hemispheric union. Hillary Clinton’s dream, she told a Brazilian bank in 2013, is “a hemispheric common market, with open borders, sometime in the future,” [32] which sounds a lot like the partnership plan’s Leaders Statement:

Our actions to align climate and energy policies will protect human health and help level the playing field for our businesses, households, and workers … that sets us firmly on the path to a more sustainable future. [33]

Translated out of double-speak, does “protect human health” mean vaccinations for all, and “level the playing field” the death of the middle class? To sustain something is to make it last with dependable support systems. Is the Leaders Statement alluding to the SSS (Space Surveillance System) Space Fence constructed and operated by North American and NATO interests—a great surveillance machine with many parts that altogether provide real full spectrum dominance not just of weather and the near-earth environment but of planet Earth and its inhabitants in their entirety for generations?

It is a near-impossible task to describe the resurrected Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) “Star Wars” Space Fence in our atmosphere now transformed into a wireless antenna in order to “master the Human Domain,” but we must prepare for the lockdown Space Age now built around us in the air and on the Earth, which is why I wrote Under An Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown.

Elana Freeland is a writer, ghostwriter, lecturer, storyteller, and teacher who researches and writes on Deep State issues, including the stories of survivors of MK-ULTRA, ritual abuse, and invasive electromagnetic weapons (Nexus, October 2014). She is now perhaps best known for Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth, published in June 2014 by Feral House, and has recently completed the sequel Under An Ionized Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown to be released in September 2017. She lives in Olympia, Washington.

Notes

1. The Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) circumvented then-President Truman’s anti-Nazi order and scrubbed Nazi affiliations, then granted them new identities and security clearances.

2. Col. Tamzy J. House et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” August 1996. “2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future.

3. These categories were first made public by independent scientist Clifford Carnicom, carnicominstitute.org.

4. Robert E. Morrison, Specialist in Earth Sciences, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, “Chapter 5: Federal Activities in Weather Modification.” Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, November 15, 1978.

5. P. Gosselin, “Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth.” NoTricksZone, 17 May 2013.

6. “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2.” Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), 3 July 2013.

7. Juliet Eilperin, “Geoengineering sparks international ban, first-ever congressional report.” Washington Post, October 29, 2010.

8. Rady Ananda, “Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails.” Global Research, November 5, 2013.

9. “Chemtrails Confirmed: Climate Scientist Admits Jets Are ‘Dumping Aerosols.’” Chemtrailsplanet.net, January 9, 2015.

10. “NASA Scientist Admits ‘Chemtrails’ Are Real.” Chemtrailsplanet.net, March 11, 2016.

11. Christina Sarich, “Italian Senator Calls for Declassification of Chemtrail Documents.” Naturalsociety.com, April 15, 2014.

12. “Minister pledges probe into chemtrails,” Cyprus-mail.com, February 17, 2016.

13. J.D. Heyes, “NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012.” Naturalnews.com, July 1, 2014.

14. David Lewis, “EPA’s disturbing leadership.” The Oconee Enterprise, May 12, 2016.

15. Alan Levin, “NTSB: Ted Stevens’ plane crash remains a mystery.” USA Today, May 24, 2011.

16. Ari Phillips, “Canadian Government Dismantles Ecological Libraries After Dismissing Thousands of Scientists.” Climate Progress, January 10, 2014.

17. “World Leaders Sign Paris Climate Agreement.” Huffington Post, April 22, 2016. The article closed with “a group of businesses, including Google, Ikea, Starbucks and General Mills, lent their support to the signing ceremony.”

18. Sarah Malm, “UN planning an ‘international tribunal of climate justice’ which would allow nations to take developed countries to court.” Daily Mail, 2 November 2015.

19. Liz Ford, “Global goals received with rapture in New York – now comes the hard part.” The Guardian, 25 September 2015.

20. “The Netherlands takes over meteorology for the NATO Response Force.” SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) press release, 13 January 2016.

21. Jocelyn Timperley, “Academics call for geoengineering preparation in wake of Paris Agreement’s ‘deadly flaws.’” BusinessGreen, 11 January 2016.

22. James Corbett, “And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle …” The Corbett Report, February 24, 2016.

23. Jacob Levich, “The Real Agenda of the Gates Foundation.” Aspects of India’s Economy, No. 57, May 2014.

24. Paul Harris, “They’re called the Good Club – and they want to save the world.” The Guardian, 30 May 2009.

25. William J. Broad, “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science.” New York Times, March 15, 2014.

26. Daniel Barker, “Nations are now using weather modification as clandestine warfare, CIA warns.” NaturalNews.com, December 19, 2015.

27. Charles Eisenstein, “The Need For Venture Science.” Huntington Post, August 27, 2015.

28. Ibid.

29. Sean Adl-Tabatabai, “Nearly All Scientific Papers Controlled By Same Six Corporations.” YourNewsWire.com, July 20, 2015.

30. Mark J. Harper, “Dead Scientists and Microbiologists – Master List,” February 5, 2005, http://rense.com/general62/list.htm.

31. Erin Elizabeth, “A Connection with the Holistic Doctor Deaths?” HealthNutNews.com, February 1, 2016.

32. Amy Chozick et al., “Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street.” New York Times, October 7, 2016.

33. Patrick Wood, “NAU Reborn As ‘North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment Partnership’.” Technocracy News, June 30, 2016.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Planetary Lockdown, Geoengineering and “The Deep State”

The leaked draft of a presidential memorandum Donald Trump is expected to sign within days suspends a 2010 rule that discouraged American companies from funding conflict and human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo through their purchase of  “conflict minerals.”

The memo, distributed inside the administration on Friday afternoon and obtained by The Intercept, directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily waive the requirements of the Conflict Mineral Rule, a provision of the Dodd Frank Act, for two years — which the rule explicitly allows the president to do for national security purposes. The memorandum also directs the State Department and Treasury Department to find an alternative plan to “address such problems in the DRC and adjoining countries.”

The idea behind the rule, which had bipartisan support, was to drain militias of revenue by forcing firms to conduct reviews of their supply chain to determine if contractors used minerals sourced from the militias.

Mining workers stand on a muddy cliff as they work at a gold mine in north eastern Congo in 2009.

Photo: Lionel Healing/AFP/Getty Images

The impending decision comes as Trump held a meeting Wednesday with Brian Krzanich, the chief executive of Intel, one of the leading firms impacted by conflict mineral regulations. At the White House today, Krzanich appeared with the president to announce a new manufacturing plant in Arizona.

Human rights advocates — who had celebrated the conflicts rule as a major step forward — were appalled. “Any executive action suspending the U.S. conflict minerals rule would be a gift to predatory armed groups seeking to profit from Congo’s minerals as well as a gift to companies wanting to do business with the criminal and the corrupt,” said Carly Oboth, the policy adviser at Global Witness, in a statement responding to a Reuters article that first reported the move.

“It is an abuse of power that the Trump administration is claiming that the law should be suspended through a national security exemption intended for emergency purposes. Suspending this provision could actually undermine U.S. national security.”

Advanced computer chips, including technology used in cell phones and semiconductors, contain minerals often sourced from war-torn countries in central Africa. Firms such as Intel, Apple, HP, and IBM use advanced chips that contain tantalum, gold, tin, and tungsten — elements that can be mined at low prices in the the DRC, where mines are often controlled by militias fueling a decadeslong civil war.

American tech companies, such as Intel, lobbied directly on the rule when it was proposed. But since passage, tech firms have largely used third party business groups to stymie the rule. Trade groups representing major U.S. tech firms and other manufacturers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, attempted to block the rule through a federal lawsuit. In 2014, a federal court struck down a part of the rule that forced firms to reveal DRC conflict minerals on their corporate websites.

Intel is also one of the firms that has touted its effort to comply with the law, publishing a report that notes the company has conducted 40 on-site reviews of smelters in the eastern DRC.

Reuters also reported that acting SEC chief Michael Piwowar has taken steps to also weaken enforcement, asking staff to “reconsider how companies should comply.”

Read the draft memo here:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Companies Free to Buy “Conflict Minerals” from Central African Warlords. Leaked Trump Presidential Memo

Seymour Hersh – The Redirection:

[T]he Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Former Vice President Biden explaining who finances Takfiri terrorism (video):

Mr Biden said that “our biggest problem is our allies” who are engaged in a proxy Sunni-Shiite war against Syrian President Bashar Assad. He specifically named Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad – except that the people who were being supplied were (Jabhat) Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world,” Mr Biden said.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining who finances Takfiri terrorism (original):

… we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback:

Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

CIA honors Saudi Crown Prince for efforts against terrorism

The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, received a medal on Friday from the CIA for his distinct intelligence-related counter-terrorism work and his contributions to ensure international peace and security.

The medal, named after George Tenet, was handed to him by CIA Director Micheal Pompeo after the Crown Prince received him in Riyadh on Friday in the presence of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Thank you for Supporting Al Qaeda: CIA Honors Major Terrorist Financier for Successful Cooperation

As long as these weapons exist, one day they could be used with devastating effects, risking almost certain doom or close to it.

The only way to prevent eventual nuclear war is by eliminating these weapons entirely, the world community uniting on this most vital of all issues to save life on earth from possible extinction.

Nuclear roulette assures losers, not winners. Einstein said splitting the atom “changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Bush/Cheney’s December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), asserted the preemptive right to unilaterally declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons. Madness remains US policy.

Obama’s 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategies pledged US first-strike use of nuclear weapons against any adversary, nuclear armed or not.

Last year, he approved a $1 trillion program to upgrade America’s arsenal over the next 30 years, assuring other nuclear powers will follow suit.

A nuclear arms race increases the risk of these weapons being used, especially given America’s permanent war policy, targeting all sovereign independent states for regime change.

Instead of stepping back from the brink, president-elect Trump tweeted “(t)he United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

US belligerence poses an unparalleled nuclear threat, the only nation ever using them in combat, indicating likely willingness to use them again, instead of taking the lead in initiating efforts to abolish these weapons once and for all – although the technology to produce them will always exist. The atom cannot be unsplit.

During his phone conversation with Vladimir Putin, Trump rejected Obama’s 2010 New START Treaty with Russia, according to Reuters.

It capped US and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads. Trump called it “a bad deal for the United States, according to two US officials and (a) former (one) with knowledge of the call,” Reuters reported.

The treaty became effective in February 2011, expected to remain in force until at least 2021. Putin suggested extending it beyond that time frame.

Both countries have until February 2018 to reduce their nuclear arsenals to a maximum 1,550 warheads. It limits deployment of land, air, sea and subsurface nuclear weapons.

It doesn’t eliminate their weapons, nor new propulsion and delivery technological research to be able strike targets anywhere on earth in less than an hour with nuclear or non-nuclear warheads.

No global strike capabilities are compromised, nor constraints on nuclear arms modernization.

Candidate Trump said Russia “outsmarted” us, incorrectly claiming it’s allowed to continue producing nuclear weapons while America cannot.

During his confirmation hearing, Secretary State Tillerson said he supports New START, adding it’s important for Washington to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START, and also ensure our accountability as well.”

A transcript of Trump’s conversation with Putin remains classified. Reuters got its information from administration sources knowledgeable about what both leaders discussed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nuclear Madness, “Nuclear Roulette” and US First Strike Military Doctrine

La gran equivocación de Trump

February 13th, 2017 by Luis Manuel Arce Isaac

Los últimos acontecimientos políticos en Estados Unidos generan inquietudes y confusiones pues el hilo conductor de acciones y dichos de Donald Trump aparece y desaparece en las olas de una lucha de posiciones entre las élites de millonarios que no sigue patrones comunes en la forma de manifestarse.

En el establishment estadounidenses hay una lucha entre y dentro de los grupos financieros y empresariales desde el sótano hasta la azotea, y aunque no es inédita lo nuevo es que en esta ocasión se produce a cielo abierto y no de forma soterrada y poco percibida como hasta ahora.

Se puede asegurar sin temor a equivocaciones que no hay una unidad monolítica en las esferas de poder en Estados Unidos y que tampoco existe una identificación plena de intereses en la cúpula suprapartidista que hasta ahora les permitía ponerse de acuerdo.

No significa que las contradicciones en el núcleo de mando sean irreconciliables, pero su antagonismo está en los límites de la tolerancia.

Una expresión de esa situación son las manifestaciones en las calles contra Trump y su equipo de multimillonarios auspiciadas por adversarios poderosos, y el rechazo a sus ideas de conseguir por la vía más peligrosa, ofensiva y aterradora que ‘Estados Unidos vuelva a ser fuerte’, como proclama voz en cuello el nuevo mandatario.

Si es cierto el axioma de que cuando un edificio está enfermo se derrumba o lo derrumban pues es la única alternativa posible para solventar el mal cuando es estructural, el sistema de dominación estadounidense puede estar en precario y la llegada de una persona como Trump a la Casa Blanca es una constatación.

Tampoco significa que el imperio esté en las últimas o que sus días estén contados.

En Trump hay una carga pesada y peligrosa de inexperiencia política y diplomática, válida en general para su equipo de multimillonarios irreverentes -y también de sus principales asesores- lo cual no justifica sus llamados de corte nacionalsocialista como en su discurso de toma de posesión cuando remarcó que ‘de hoy en adelante una nueva visión gobernará nuestra tierra. A partir de este momento Estados Unidos será lo primero’.

Con esas espantosas palabras de Trump saltaron todas las alarmas en el mundo, incluidas las de sus aliados europeos y de la propia OTAN, en especial porque el nuevo mandatario dispondrá este año de de cerca de 600 mil millones de dólares para un presupuesto militar que es probable acelere una carrera armamentista tanto o más intensa que en la época de la guerra fría.

Hay una radicalización en ese discurso que en lugar de bajar sigue subiendo de tono en tal magnitud que da la impresión que Trump lleva años, y no días, en la Casa Blanca al punto de que en solamente la primera semana de gobierno su rechazo en el electorado marcaba 51 por ciento.

‘Juntos haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser fuerte. Haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser próspero. Haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser orgulloso. Haremos que Estados Unidos vuelva a ser seguro de nuevo. Y juntos haremos que Estados Unidos sea grande de nuevo’.

Como apuntara hace poco el teólogo brasileño Leonardo Boff, subyacente a estas palabras funciona la ideología del ‘destino manifiesto’, de la excepcionalidad de Estados Unidos que posee una misión única y divina en el mundo, la de llevar sus valores de derechos, de la propiedad privada y de la democracia liberal al resto de la humanidad. Una equivocación horrible.

Todo puede comenzar con una guerra comercial total y un proteccionismo destructor y xenofóbico del que la discriminación étnica y religiosa y la cruzada antislámica son una suerte de sostén ideológico de la propaganda antiterrorista para encubrir objetivos mucho más profundos como los de reconstruir un hegemonismo que no tiene cabida en esta época y requeriría el uso de una fuerza superior a la desplegada en Iraq, Afganistán, Siria y otros teatros de guerra, y más abarcadora.

Trump arrastra en esa cruzada a ultraderechistas como Marine Le Pen, en Francia, o Mauricio Macri, en Argentina, y da riendas al expansionismo de los israelíes agresivamente contrarios a las recomendaciones de la ONU de que abandonen la colonización de Jerusalén y otros territorios palestinos que ocupan, pero al mismo tiempo se echa en contra a sus más cercanos aliados europeos e incluso a la OTAN.

Hay una coincidencia general entre economistas de diversas tendencias que ninguno de los proyectos de Trump generará el empleo que el mandatario esgrime como argumento y que el proteccionismo tampoco funcionará y será un desastre. No son tiempos de improvisaciones.

El gobierno de Trump nació torcido porque es hijo de la decadencia del sistema. Sus cimientos cedieron al peso del neoliberalismo y una globalización desenfrenadamente mal conducida, y de la necesidad de un reacomodo de fuerzas liderado por los sectores que representan los supermillonarios elegidos para integrar el gobierno, incluidos el petrolero y el militar-industrial.

Ese gabinete ministerial marca una polarización política que va más allá de la separación matemática de un conglomerado en dos partes con suficientes potencialidades de poder, pues atañe más que a una ideología partidista, al resquebrajamiento de la estructura del sistema que les sirve de soporte a demócratas y republicanos.

Ciertamente, el nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos es fiel a un guion preconcebido dirigido a producir un cambio dentro del sistema que permita aplicar nuevas estrategias sin temer la cercanía del abismo extremista para recuperar el hegemonismo que Trump considera perdido. La gran confusión de Trump y sus allegados es que no estamos en una época de cambios, sino del cambio de una época.

Luis Manuel Arce Isaac

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La gran equivocación de Trump

Alianza económica Japón-EE.UU., centro de la reunión Abe-Trump

February 13th, 2017 by Richard Ruíz Julién

El comercio entre Japón y los Estados Unidos es uno de los temas de la reunión de hoy en Washington entre el primer ministro japonés, Shinzo Abe, y el presidente estadounidense, Donald Trump.

Trump indicó que busca un acuerdo de comercio bilateral, pero no mencionó si tiene la intención de que sea de libre comercio.

La cumbre es, en opinión de expertos, una oportunidad para que Abe averigüe las verdaderas intenciones del nuevo ocupante de la Casa Blanca.

Japón no está dispuesto a aceptar una posible oferta de negociaciones con la parte estadounidense, si en lugar de hablar sobre un acuerdo de libre comercio, Trump hace hincapié en la corrección del desequilibrio entre los dos países.

El presidente de Estados Unidos puso como ejemplo la industria automotriz para argumentar que el comercio bilateral perjudica a su país.

Pero Trump está obsesionado con la imagen de la década de 1980, plantean algunos analistas.

En aquellos días, Japón exportaba al año tres millones 800 mil vehículos a Estados Unidos.

Sin embargo, esa cifra se redujo en más de un 50 por ciento hasta llegar a un millón 740 mil en la actualidad.

En realidad, las automotrices japonesas están aumentando su producción en suelo estadounidense hasta aproximadamente tres millones 900 mil unidades.

Por consiguiente, es importante convencer a Trump y a los funcionarios de su Gobierno de que las cosas ya no son como en la era de fricción de hace unas décadas.

Especialistas como el profesor Yorizumi Watanabe, de la Universidad Keio, recomiendan a Abe que proponga la manera en que Japón puede contribuir a la economía estadounidense a través de proyectos de mejora infraestructural, entre otros.

Los métodos no deben ser los utilizados en la década de 1980, cuando ese país del este de Asia importaba cierta cantidad de vehículos y componentes automotrices de Estados Unidos para compensar el desequilibrio.

Incluso, si Washington propone un tratado de libre comercio bilateral, Tokio debe rechazar las negociaciones al respecto.

Ambas naciones ya sostuvieron conversaciones detalladas sobre eliminación de aranceles y el momento de su aplicación.

Lo hicieron al margen de los diálogos sobre el Acuerdo Estratégico Transpacífico de Asociación Económica (TPP).

El profesor Watanabe no cree que Japón tenga intenciones de retomar esa negociación.

Abe debe decirle a Trump que Estados Unidos va a salir perjudicado si se mantienen lejos del TPP y obliga a Japón a aumentar sus importaciones, precisó el mencionado investigador.

Negociar ese tipo de cuotas solamente será una pérdida de tiempo, ya que las autoridades niponas se niegan a aceptar nuevas propuestas.

La industria agropecuaria estadounidense podría perder su cuota en el mercado japonés si se prolongan las nuevas negociaciones.

Por ejemplo, Japón importaría definitivamente más carne vacuna australiana, ya que el tratado de libre comercio nipo-australiano se encuentra vigente.

Con el TPP se reducirían poco a poco los aranceles.

Estados Unidos se puede beneficiar si aumentan sus exportaciones basándose en menores tarifas.

Richard Ruíz Julién

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Alianza económica Japón-EE.UU., centro de la reunión Abe-Trump

“ALL tailings “ponds” are a problem. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.”  — Canadians.org

Last year, Duluth News-Tribune published a Local News article with the title “EPA signals its support for final PolyMet review”.

The article ended with what I regard as an intentionally deceptive and woefully insufficient sentence: “Critics say the project is likely to taint downstream waters with acidic runoff”.

In a column for the Duluth Reader, which I wrote in response, I attempted to correct the notion that “acidic runoff” is the major reason for the widespread opposition to PolyMet’s proposed copper/nickel mining project (which is adjacent to the pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness). PolyMet, it should be mentioned, is a Penny Stock company from Canada and a total novice when it comes to operating copper/nickel mines. The company has never earned a penny producing a product. All their revenues have come from speculators and other investors that are hoping that the regulatory agencies will succumb to corporate and public pressure, that the mine will be built and that they can cash in on their investment.

The Mount Polley Copper Mining Disaster of 2014

On August 4, 2014, a mine at Mount Polley, British Columbia had its huge tailings pond dam (an earthen dam) suddenly burst, massively polluting downstream streams, rivers and lakes, not to mention underground aquifers which had already been polluted during the years before the catastrophe.

The millions of tons of toxic sludge flooded into tiny Hazeltine Creek and then into the pristine Quesnel Lake, which flows into the 800 mile long British Columbian Fraser River, a migratory Sockeye salmon-bearing river, that empties into the Georgia Strait and the Pacific Ocean at the city of Vancouver, B.C.

Typical of most government and industry responses to such catastrophic mining industry failures, Stephen Harper’s conservative government of Canada – not to mention the ruling Liberal Party government of British Columbia – tried to cover up the disaster. Hence, most North Americans on either side of the border (certainly us Minnesotans) were unaware of the event, thanks in part to our co-opted corporate-controlled media that failed to adequately report on it.

Immediately below are links to dramatic photos and videos that have been available to the US government and media agencies, but which were not reported on the evening news of either local or regional media outlets.

Imperial Metals Corporation of Vancouver, the owner of the mine, acknowledged that they had been regularly dumping toxic metals into the slurry (aka “slime”) pond in the years leading up to the failure of the earthen dam. The following list of toxic minerals is taken from Environment Canada’s website at:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/donnees-data/index.cfm?do=disposal_details&lang=En&opt_npri_id=0000005102&opt_report_year=2013.

Environment Canada reported that the metallic contaminants that had been dumped in the tailings pond included: Lead, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Cadmium, Vanadium, Antimony, Manganese and Mercury.

Each of these 9 heavy metal contaminants are highly toxic to all life forms and have no safe levels in drinking water or in the serum or tissues of human or animal bodies. These contaminants, commonly found in hard rock mines, are also lethal to plant life, but only when they are ground up into fine powder form in the mineral extraction process.

The photo above was taken following the Mt Polley tailings pond failure. It pictures what was once the tiny, 6 foot wide Hazeltine Creek. Photo courtesy of Clayoquot Action, Tofino, BC (www.clayoquotaction.org)

Here is a selection of links to some of the videos of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam failure:

The first one is titled: ‘The Unlikely Truth’ – The Imperial Metals Environmental Disaster”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfMolg5Ul_0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfanpPz8HeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAItFxc8bME&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3yd8GPSnA

And here is an important video of an experimental tailings dam breach that can happen to any earthen dam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWEWVw7TGk4

“ALL tailings “ponds” are a problem. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.”

The birds-eye view of the mouth of the tiny (normally about 6 feet wide) Hazeltine Creek (now 120-150 feet wide) as it enters into Quesnel Lake, the previously deepest, purest lake in British Columbia and a famous trout and salmon fishery; that is, until August 5, 2014, when 24,000,000 cubic meters of toxic water and sludge breached the Mt Polley mine’s tailings dam and exploded downstream. The tan material in the photo represents millions of floating dead trees that were swept away in the massive sludge flood.

Immediately below are satellite photos of the Mt Polley copper/gold mining facility’s before and after it suddenly dissolved and broke in 2014. Note the change in color of the tailings pond, the nearby lakes and the widening of the Hazeltine Creek that directed the toxic sludge into Quesnel Lake. The creek had been invisible to satellite photos until the flood.

All these photos depict what are considered the biggest environmental disasters in the histories of Canada and could, someday in the near or distant future, represent what could happen to Minnesota’s St. Louis River watershed, since highly toxic metal tailings/sludge/slurry/slime ponds have a substantial risk of failing, especially in the case of one of our planet’s increasingly common (seemingly annual) 100-year catastrophic floods, storms or downpours. 

These photos are posted at: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Polley_mine_disaster#Imperial_Metals_history

A Final Thought

Northern Minnesotans, Native American Water Protectors ( like the heroes at Standing Rock), sportsmen, environmentalists, downstream businesses, wild rice harvesters, fish, game, birds and just plain working folks whose babies and other vulnerable beings with developing brains need non-toxic water to thrive or simply survive must understand that such relatively common catastrophes could destroy the aquifers in the BWCAW, Birch Lake, the Partridge River, the Embarrass River, the St. Louis River, the city of Duluth and ultimately, Lake Superior.

In the considered opinion of many ethical thinkers, any human with an ounce of morality would conclude that the risks of allowing amateur mining companies such as PolyMet and Twin Metals – and other similarly amoral, sociopathic and non-human corporations like Switzerland’s GlencoreXstrata or Chile’s Andofagasta are too great.  (Glencore and Andofagasta  are the two major multinational mining corporations that control PolyMet and Twin Metals.)

The plans to open and operate sulfuric acid-producing copper mines in pristine watersheds that are just upstream and upwind from children and other living things should be shelved for the good of the planet. But somehow, the legislators who are often in bed with their corporate paymasters are quite willing to ignore the risks in favor of a few temporary jobs. The risks seem to be OK for conscienceless corporations and their investors, but they don’t live here.

States that surround the potentially poisoned Lake Superior and the other downstream great lakes should have a say in the issue. Bullying corporations, along with their co-opted friends in positions of power in state and national capitals are quite willing to risk permanent catastrophes such as Mt Polley.

They, being the sociopathic entities that they are, can’t be expected to act as ethical humans, especially when billions of dollars are involved.>

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, health, democracy, civility and longevity of the populace. Many of his columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;http://www.globalresearch.ca/authors?query=Gary+Kohls+articles&by=&p=&page_id= or at https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Environmental Disaster? The PolyMet Mining Project and the Lethal Impacts to the St Louis River Watershed and Lake Superior

The US-baсked Syrian Democratic Forces, predominantly Kurdish YPG units, have been developing an advance in the eastern countryside of the ISIS self-proclaimed Syrian capital of Raqqah.

The decision to flank the ISIS stronghold from eastern direction followed a failed attempt of the US Special Forces and some SDF units to infiltrate the area of the strategic Tabqa dam.

De-facto, this meant that the US-led forces were not able to achieve their strategic goal west of Raqqah. However, the SDF announced the end of the 2nd and the start of the 3rd stage of the Operation Wrath of Euphrates.

The goal of the 3rd stage is to further isolate the ISIS-held city, including seizing the road to Deir Ezzor. If the SDF captures the road, ISIS units in Deir Ezzor will be cut off from their allies in Raqqah. This will decrease significantly the terrorist group’s ability to redeploy reinforcements from one front to another. Nevertheless, this is under a big question. The US strategists are well known due to their will to keep open exit roads for ISIS terrorists in besieged cities in Syria and Iraq. If the road remains open, ISIS units will likely flow from Raqqah to Deir Ezzor, escalating confrontation with the Syrian army in the besieged city.

While the new US administration is considering a new plan of the Raqqah operation, SDF representative, Rojda Felat, has already claimed that the SDF will need more heavy military equipment, including battle tanks, to storm the city. In other words, the YPG wants to get more equipment to increase its military capabilities. But this doesn’t mean that the group will throw all what it has to storm Raqqah.

Indeed, the fate of Raqqah depends on the decision of the US administration on the issue. Earlier this month, Lieutenant General Jon Davis emphasized that the US would need not only additional airstrikes.

There are already between 300 and 500 US Special Forces troops and unknown number of French and German special forces. This number will likely be increased to retake the ISIS capital in Syria. It could indicate that the Pentagon is going to involve US and NATO forces during the operation, repeating the Mosul case. The real role of the SDF is now unclear. In any case, its goal will be to show that its “local Syrian forces” storm the ISIS stronghold.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Special Forces on the Ground in Syria: US-Backed Advance on Raqqah ISIS Stronghold. What Is Going On?

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the immunity given to high-ranking Bush-era officials in Saleh v. Bush,  and has dismissed Ms. Saleh’s claims of aggression against George W. Bush and others for their alleged planning and commission of the crime of aggression against Iraq.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Westfall Act, a federal law that provides domestic immunity to government officials who commit alleged wrongdoing, is broad enough to cover acts that would amount to aggression under international law.

According to the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff seeking to hold high-ranking officials liable for illegal acts under international law must allege something akin to a financial interest in order to litigate against domestic officials. The Ninth Circuit provided the following hypothetical:

A federal official would act out of “personal” motives and not be “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve the master” if, for instance, he used the leverage of his office to benefit a spouse’s business, paying no heed to the resulting damage to the public welfare.

The Ninth Circuit also dismissed arguments that the Nuremberg Judgment’s prohibition on domestic immunity to government officials who engage in aggression was binding as a matter of domestic, U.S. law.

You can read the opinion below.

Ninth Circuit Opinion

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Legal Immunity of George W. Bush in the “Commission” of War Crimes in Iraq: California 9th Circuit Opinion Released

As the third-largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa and the continent’s number one oil producer, Angola seems set for a promising future. The country finally pulled out of a 27-year long civil war in 2002 and has been rapidly building up its infrastructure ever since, even if its economy still retained its energy-exporting dependence.

The economic crisis that’s been caused by the latest oil slump has given Luanda a pressing motivation to finally diversify its revenue base and begin exploring the manufacturing industry and steel production.

Only time will tell if this is too little too late or the right move at the right time, but the most fundamental component of Angola’s diversification strategy is its ambition to serve as a terminal point for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia’s multinational railroad projects. Together these constitute the coast-to-coast Southern Trans-African Route (STAR) being spearheaded by China, which in turn reinforces the Chinese-Angolan Strategic Partnership and underscores the unparalleled importance of Luanda in Beijing’s continental grand strategy.

Benguela Will Brighten Angola’s Future

China’s New Silk Road vision for Africa encompasses much more that natural resource extraction. It in fact aims to facilitate the continent’s commercial capabilities in serving as a labor and export market for China’s overcapacity. African countries can only be in a position to purchase excess Chinese products if they themselves have a stable and growing economy, which is impossible to maintain under an energy export-centric system. Therein lays the strategic value of Chinese investments in Angola and the other countries of the South-Central, East, and Horn of African regions that are expected to be connected to the new transnational multipolar transport corridors that Beijing is financing and constructing all throughout the continent. Angola’s role in this ambitious construction is to function as STAR’s South Atlantic terminal via the colonial-era Benguela Railroad that China just rehabilitated last year.

Following its (re-)inauguration, Angola now has the potential of joining its Atlantic port of Lobito to the mineral-rich former Katanga region of the DRC, as well as to the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. Moreover, the construction of the Northwest Railway in the latter landlocked state would directly link Lusaka to Lobito, and in an even broader context, provide a safer alternative to the conflict-prone Congo in connecting Angola with Tanzania, or in other words, bridging Africa’s Atlantic and Indian Ocean coasts. In the event that a commercially viable transport interconnector can be created between Tanzania and Kenya, then the broader potential would emerge for Tanzania to establish a mainland trading route with Ethiopia via the LAPSSET Corridor. By extent, this would then make it possible for two of the continent’s largest economies of South Africa and Angola to conduct overland trade with its fastest-growing one in Ethiopia by means of the stable East African Community (EAC) transit states of Tanzania and Kenya.

Angola’s key to cashing in on this transregional real-sector economic corridor is the Benguela Railroad, and it’s the only infrastructural hope that Luanda has for sustainably augmenting its intra-African trade and not losing out on this historic opportunity for physically networking its economy with its continental counterparts. Given this supreme importance, it’s not hyperbole to state that Angola’s future is dependent on Benguela, since it’s only a matter of time before the energy bonanza dies out and/or the impoverished population becomes violently unhappy (due to foreign NGO prodding) with the rising income inequality that’s been piercingly aggravated by the present economic crisis. Without the sort of renewable economic opportunities that international transport infrastructure can bring to Angola, its entrepreneurs will have difficulty cost-effectively penetrating other markets. Even in the event that they opt for maritime trade routes across the cape and all the way to the other side of Africa, they’d lose out on competitively valuable time in doing so that could otherwise be optimized by relying on the new interconnected rail routes.

The Russian-Chinese Strategic Outpost In The South Atlantic

 Concept:

It has been comprehensively described how Angola fits into China’s larger plans for Africa, and that’s not even counting the fact that the country is Beijing’s second-largest supplier of oil, but Russia also has an interest in Angola, too. Whereas China’s focus is evolving from energy imports to multinational transport facilitation and real-sector investments, Russia’s is still concentrated on natural resource extraction and the global energy market in general. Moscow also maintains close military relations with Luanda dating back to the Soviet era, and it uses this strategic connection to reinforce its bilateral partnership and ensure that it’s not totally left out of the economic developments in the country. The confluence of Russia and China’s attention in Angola means that the South Atlantic country is host to a unique interplay of the global Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership. This plays out through Moscow assisting with security and energy marketplace cooperation while Beijing reliably purchases the said energy supplies from Luanda and works on modernizing its real-sector economic potential.

Commercial:

Prior to addressing the traditional military-energy mainstays of the Russian-Angolan Strategic Partnership, it’s important to touch upon the recent commercial incentives that have emerged as a driving force in the bilateral relationship. The outcome of the Angola-Russia Intergovernmental Commission meeting in April was that both sides would work towards deepening their cooperation in the spheres of automobile technology, light and heavy industry, fisheries, manufacturing, mining, renewable (solar) and non-renewable energy, railroad components, and agriculture. It’s hoped that closer collaboration in these sectors can lead to an increase in bilateral trade from its present level of $244 million last year to something worthier of the high level of strategic relations that both sides presently enjoy, though that isn’t to say that this current state isn’t commendable as it is. One report writes that this rate is actually “four times more than the amount yield [sic] in the previous period”, which indicates that economic relations are already growing at an astronomical pace and will likely continue along a positive path for the coming future, though probably not in such an exponential way.

Military-Strategic:

The most well-known characteristic of Russian-Angolan relations is their visible military cooperation, with the latest deal being signed in 2013 for the export of $1 billion worth of Russian jets, tanks, artillery, arms, and ammunition to the African nation. President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Angola’s leader since 1979, visited the Kremlin and met with President Putin in 2006, while then-President Medvedev reciprocated the measure and went to Angola in 2009 during his tour of Africa. These leadership summits underscored just how important each side views the other, and they served to remind the world that Russia had not forgotten about Angola despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the renunciation of their shared ideological ties of communism. Modern-day Russian diplomacy towards Angola is driven by military considerations just as much as it is by energy ones, and nothing illustrates this more clearly than a brilliant article written by Gustavo Plácido Dos Santos for Eurasia Review.

Energy:

In “Russia’s ‘Charm Offensive’ In Africa: The Case Of Angola – Analysis”, the researcher writes that sub-Saharan Africa is already awash in oil and is expected to produce more gas than Russia by 2040, thus making it an attractive alternative source for non-Russian energy imports for the EU. He believes that Russia’s energy cooperation with Angola is centered on giving it a position in the hydrocarbon-rich Gulf of Guinea and thus allowing it to indirectly exert influence over the EU’s forthcoming reserve pool, ironically negating Brussels’ hope that the region would not in any way be under Moscow’s sway. This is a clever approach by Russia’s energy corps and perfectly supplements what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense have in mind for Angola.

Leadership Assistance:

By becoming a greater energy power hand-in-hand with Moscow’s expertise and investment in this field, Luanda can then be in a better position to purchase more weaponry for defending its interests, with the combination of energy and military power leading to the inevitable expansion of political influence throughout the region. China’s assistance in guiding Angola’s transition from a vulnerable resource-exporting economy to a more stable commercially linked one via the New Silk Roads is integral to sustaining Luanda’s projected leadership, and it’s here where the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership again overlaps in the South Atlantic and gives the US yet another reason to want to sabotage Angola’s rise.

Angola’s African Power Plays

Angola is one of Africa’s fastest-rising powers, and it’s taken the opportunity to flex its muscles abroad on more than one occasion, even during the times that it was embroiled in civil war. Here’s a look at the instances in which Luanda make Angolan influence felt in different parts of Africa:

Shaba I and II:

Following the immediate post-independence crisis in the Congo, new leader Mobutu renamed his country Zaire forbade its mineral-rich and secessionist-prone southeastern province of Katanga from going by its original name, instead rechristening it as “Shaba”. The pro-American leader actively cooperated with the West in turning his country into the camp’s geostrategic African stronghold, and this naturally saw him extending support to the allied pro-American UNITA rebels fighting in Angola’s civil war. In response, the ruling People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) party and its Soviet and Cuban patrons are suspected of having aided the Zairean rebel group “Front for the National Liberation of the Congo” in their 1977 invasion of Shaba from Angolan soil. The US and France sent material and military support respectively and the invasion was repelled, but a follow-up attempt was made one year later in which France once again teamed up with the US in order to save their proxy.

São Tomé and Príncipe:

The former Portuguese colony in the Gulf of Guinea gained independence in the same year as Angola did in 1975, and only three years later it requested its fellow freedom fighter’s troops to quell a coup attempt in 1978. Relations have since been very strong between the two Lusophone states, and the islands are a priority vector of Angola’s grand strategy. Being situated where they are in the oil-rich waters right off the coast of Nigeria, they’re primed to be used as a launching pad for further Angolan influence along the waterway and around the West African bend. In fact, São Tomé and Príncipe is so significant to Angola because it represents the first node in a larger Lusophone chain of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) from Western Africa to the US and the EU, all of which are under varying degrees of Luanda’s influence.

Together with Cabo Verde (formerly Cape Verde until 2013) and Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe could one day collectively constitute a West African “string of pearls” along the maritime Silk Road, especially as multipolar-aligned Angola continues to receive assistance from the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership in its quest to become an African Power. Each of these states could fulfill their own respective logistical roles in hosting warehouses and storage facilities that facilitate the convenient transshipment of African goods to the US under the framework of the trade-enabling African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). A similar such agreement might be signed between the EU and different African countries or regions sometime in the future, at which time these Lusophone SLOC would become doubly important.

The only inadvertently negative consequence of Luanda’s rising influence in São Tomé and Príncipe is the potential that this has for sparking a strategic dilemma between Angola and Nigeria. This will be addressed at the end of this section, but the author would like to draw the reader’s attention to a comprehensive article written by the aforementioned Portuguese political scientist Gustavo Plácido dos Santo, this time called “Nigeria And Sao Tome And Principe: A Relationship Centered On Oil And Geostrategy – Analysis”. The researcher compiled a diverse collection of facts about the bilateral relationship between these two states, especially as it relates to the energy sphere and future anti-piracy security measures in the Gulf of Guinea, to postulate that Abuja has a discernable interest in the islands, but that Angola’s rising military and investment cooperation with the islands might lead to Nigeria feeling threatened.

Namibia:

MPLA hosted the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) which was fighting throughout most of the Cold War against apartheid South Africa’s occupation of what is nowadays called Namibia. During that time, the South African military regularly violated Angolan territory and participated in many battles with the country’s military. Angolan-Namibian ties continued to strengthen after independence and fortuitously provided a common geographic platform for bringing Luanda and Pretoria together as well, after which their relations finally began to take off at the turn of the century. It was right before that time that Angola and Namibia entered into a broader multilateral mutual defense pact in 1999 that also included Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In order to explain the peculiarity of how rivals Angola and the DRC came to militarily support one another, a conversation must be undertaken about the First and Second Congo Wars that raged throughout the latter half of the 1990s.

First and Second Congo Wars:

Angola invaded Zaire in 1997 in order to avenge Mobutu’s decades-long support for the pro-American UNITA rebels. It wasn’t the first country to get involved in the fray, but its large-scale participation could be considered as a tipping point for the anti-Mobutu coalition due to Angola’s proximity to the country’s capital and the fact that it opened up a second Western front to accompany the first one in the East. Rwanda and Uganda had by that time already been streaming towards Kinshasa as part of their jungle blitzkrieg, and unable to fight a two-front war against such capable military foes, Mobutu abdicated shortly thereafter and the rebel chief Laurent Kabila became the country’s president, after which he renamed the country the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

His former Rwandan and Ugandan allies tried to turn him into their puppet right away but he rebelled and expelled their forces from his recently liberated country, which in turn sparked the Second Congo War. It was through this conflict which some have called “Africa’s World War” that Angola and the DRC became mutual defense partners and Luanda sent soldiers to Kabila’s aid. In the nearly two decades since, the relationship has had its ups and downs, such as when Angola and the DRC resolved the border dispute between them in 2007, but yet Angola still continued to kick out Congolese citizens en masse under the pretense that they were illegal immigrants.

It’ll later be seen when discussing the Hybrid War scenario of Kongo Kingdom Revisionism why this may have been a much more forward-looking strategic decision than the short-sighted reactive one that people thought it was at the moment, but for now it’s enough to say that state-to-state relations between Angola and the DRC are stable and improving despite the illegal immigration impediment. Each side is gradually bettering their connectivity and security cooperation with the other in light of the Benguela railway’s refurbishment and the associated cross-continental New Silk Road benefits that it will make available to both of them, and this can be expected to lead to even closer relations in the coming years that might eventually put to rest the low-scale rivalry that still exists between them.

Republic of the Congo:

Angola’s most daring military operation was probably when it sent its troops to back the rebels of former Congolese President Denis Sassou Nguesso in retaking the Republic of the Congo’s capital of Brazzaville in late 1997. No other foreign forces were involved in this campaign, unlike in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, but just like during the First Congo War, the rebels probably wouldn’t have prevailed had it not been for the Angolan intervention. Luanda’s strategic objective in this campaign was to install a friendly government in Brazzaville that wouldn’t provide aid and sanctuary to the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) that’s fighting for the independence of the barely discontiguous province north a few kilometers north of the Congo River.

Although obviously not a factor at the time, Angolan influence over President Nguesso could indirectly give Luanda another trump card over Kinshasa when it comes to the Chinese-supported trans-African routes being developed through the DRC. The Southern Trans-African Route (STAR) terminates at the Atlantic port of Lobito, while its northern counterpart, the Northern Trans-African Route (NTAR), will reach the ocean either at the poor and geographically unsuitable DRC port of Matadi or the deep-water and much more accessible Republic of Congo one in Pointe-Noire. Since Matadi isn’t foreseen to ever become anything more than a secondary backup to Pointe-Noire, the Republic of the Congo will ultimately hold the final say over the DRC’s transcontinental trade route, thus giving Brazzaville’s allied government in Luanda a say over Kinshasa by extent.

Guinea-Bissau:

The last significant projection of influence that Angola partook in was in Guinea-Bissau, though this one was much more covert and barely made the headlines. The former Portuguese colony is situated along the forecasted Lusophone SLOC from Western Africa to the US and EU, and it’s also a notorious drug-smuggling point for South American cocaine to Europe. It’s so deeply enmeshed in the drug trade that The Guardian even declared it the world’s first “narcostate” in 2008, pointing to the fact that the fifth-poorest country in the world was practically controlled by Colombian cartels and their corrupt military partners.

The coup-prone country experienced a successful military seizure of power in 2012, ostensibly in reaction to what the plotters denounced as a “secret deal” between the Angolan and Bissauan governments for “Angola to attack Guinea-Bissau’s military”. To add some context to what might otherwise sound like an unsubstantiated claim, Angola had deployed 270 troops to the country to help reform the military and hopefully put an end to this institution continuously undermining the political authorities. Whether Luanda was indeed trying to ‘destroy’ the military through this format or not, they probably saw it as a threat to their future influence over the state, hence why they launched the coup and Angola withdrew its troops a few months afterwards (though the departure was announced a few days before the regime change unfolded).

Angola’s attention to this seemingly obscure state is driven by its shared colonial history, familiar Lusophone identity, and its strategic position along the SLOC. Luanda likely thought that it could easily reform the Bissauan military and turn the state into an outpost for projecting dual maritime-mainland influence. Whatever its motivation was in getting involved with Guinea-Bissau, Angola clearly failed to achieve its objectives, and while the two states have since normalized their relations and decided to strengthen them, it’s very likely that Luanda won’t engage in another power play there anytime soon. This doesn’t mean that the two countries can’t pragmatically cooperate on joint projects, but that the Angolan military will probably never be redeployed to the country again, thus preventing a repeat of the pre-coup events that sparked the regime change and keeping relations at a respectful level free from unnecessary distractions and future speculation.

An Angolan-Nigerian Rivalry?:

Angola’s rise as an African Power is pushing up against Nigeria’s future ambitions in the Greater Gulf of Guinea space and the broader West-Central African region in general, though it hasn’t yet gotten to the point of an observable rivalry between both sides. Angola and Nigeria have the potential to pool their capabilities and become the cores of a larger multipolar network throughout the whole of Atlantic Africa, and neither objectively has anything to fear from the other. It’s possible for a friendly competition to develop in which Abuja and Luanda stake out their own respective spheres of influence and then work on pragmatically integrating these areas into a collective framework that ultimately complements the multipolar vision for the continent. It’s still too early to tell which direction Angolan-Nigerian relations will go, but the US certainly has a stake in stoking a manufactured strategic dilemma between both sides and getting them to deeply distrust one another to the point of encouraging a divisive Cold War between them.

São Tomé and Príncipe is the perfect location for this to happen, just as Dos Santos warned about in his article for Eurasia Review. It would geographically make sense for the islands to partner more closely with Nigeria out of their common anti-piracy interest in protecting their oil-rich waters and the Joint Development Authority that they both share, but the socio-cultural factors connecting it to Angola might mean that Luanda could interpret any prospective security cooperation between the two as being against its interests or vice-versa vis-à-vis Abuja if São Tomé and Príncipe invites Luanda to take on this role instead. Right now the state of Angolan-Nigerian affairs in regards to São Tomé and Príncipe is calm and there seems to be no reason to worry, but all that it might take to change the situation is one or a few high-profile successful or attempted hijackings before the joint anti-piracy initiative that Dos Santos suggested would be brought to the fore of the Gulf’s geopolitics.

From Angola’s perspective, any relative Nigerian advances in what it believes to constitute its soft sphere of cultural-political influence (the Lusophone space), as well as over another oil-exporting country like itself (albeit nowhere near as big as either of these two), could lead to the eventual retreat of Angolan influence in similarly composed states (e.g. Guinea-Bissau and Equatorial Guinea) and scuttle Luanda’s plans for regional leadership. From the reverse angle, Nigeria knows that if Angola came out on top in any prospective competition for São Tomé, then it could indirectly gain influence in the waters of its strategically placed Exclusive Economic Zone, which a look at the map shows would essentially hem Nigeria in along its southern maritime periphery and give Luanda influence within close proximity to the country’s oil-producing Niger River Delta. If Angolan anti-piracy vessels started patrolling the nearby waters outside of any multilateral military understanding that included Nigeria, then it would certainly be assessed as a strategic threat in Abuja.

If the US succeeded in starting a Cold War between Angola and Nigeria for São Tomé and Príncipe, then it would directly play right into Washington’s strategic hands by having two of Africa’s West Coast powers face off against one another in a mutually disadvantageous scenario. Nigeria is already a weakened giant both because of its internal identity-political dysfunction and the resultant (Western-supported) outgrowth of Boko Haram, and even though Angola is clearly on the ascent, its rise could severely be hampered by an unnecessary and potentially costly rivalry with Nigeria. The US would prefer to have two embattled states contain one another and pick their rival apart than to have one or both of them peacefully succeeding and tilling the political landscape to make it more fertile for multipolarity. Seeing how Nigeria is currently beset with a multitude of serious problems stemming from Boko Haram and other regional threats such as the Niger Delta-based “Avengers” and similar criminal-separatist organizations, it’s going to be a while before it can ever return to substantially chasing its leadership ambitions, therefore leaving Angola as the last target in the duo for the US to destabilize.

Plotting Against Angola

Having established that Angola is a reliably stable country that endeavors for regional leadership on both the high seas (the Lusophone SLOC) and the continental interior (its involvement in the DRC and terminal role in STAR), one can conclude that the country is well on its way to becoming a cornerstone of multipolarity in Africa. Despite the structural risks that are still present in the economy due to its excessive revenue dependency on energy exports, the country has by and large remained on the positive trajectory that the MPLA civil war victors have laid out for it.

Even though long-serving and elderly President Jose Eduardo dos Santos has no clear political heirs, it’s feasible that his billionaire entrepreneur daughter Isabel (who also doubles as Africa’s richest woman and the current head of the state oil company Sonangol) might one day take up the reins and ensure strategic continuity, which in that case would reinforce the Russian position in Angola because of the fact that she was born in the USSR to an ethnic Russian mother and realistically retains a positive attitude towards her maternal homeland. Since it can be predicted that Moscow’s influence will only continue to rise within this country together with China’s, the US might seek to tap into its decades-long Cold War-era reserve of on-the-ground proxies to encourage a series of counteracting Hybrid Wars.

In relation to the ever-present threat of a Color Revolution and possibly preceded by or unfolding in coordination with it, these could take the form of a revived UNITA insurgency, Cabinda separatism, and Kongo Kingdom revisionism.

UNITA 2.0:

Background

This Portuguese-era rebel group never stopped fighting after the colonialists departed, instead turning their guns on their MPLA rivals who were by then leading the newly independent country. This immediately threw Angola into the throes of civil war before it ever had a chance to know peace. UNITA ended up being heavily supported by the US and apartheid South Africa, while MPLA was backed up by the USSR and Cuba, the latter of which staged a dramatic years-long military intervention by sending tens of thousands of troops to assist its beleaguered socialist ally in Africa. The civil war between UNITA and the MPLA continued even after the Cold War had ended, though by the mid-1990s the US officially disowned its warlord proxies and joined the rest of the UNSC in sanctioning them for violating ceasefire accords.

This marked a turning point in the civil war and might have been influenced by the US’ realization that UNITA wouldn’t win and that it would be much better for Washington to team up with the MPLA instead of fruitlessly keep opposing it by backing the losing side. The US may have desired reliable access to Angola’s large oil sector, and whether or not this was indeed the full motivation behind the decision to drop UNITA, it turned out to play exactly to Washington’s favor in that regard over two decades after the fact. Following the Angolan military’s neutralization of UNITA founder Jonas Savimbi in 2002 and the end of the civil war that year, the US removed sanctions against the guerrilla group which had by that point legally transitioned into an opposition party, but its diplomatic support for the government in the final stages of the war and its abandonment of UNITA led to a breakthrough in bilateral relations most clearly manifested in the energy sector and the 2009 declaration of a “Strategic Partnership Dialogue”.

Energy Politics

The US is now Angola’s second-largest oil export market behind only China, and the South Atlantic state is the US’ 10th largest import source as of May 2016. Furthermore, when the US’ domestic fracking industry underperformed in the past year because of the energy crisis, Washington opted for replacing some of its lost production with an increase in Angolan imports. The two countries are evidently very close in this sphere, but it’s clear that the relationship isn’t so integral to the US that the country would be irreparably damaged if this was disrupted. This could be taken to mean that whatever Angola’s motivations might have been in allowing the US to become its second-largest oil purchaser, this state of affairs doesn’t in any way ensure that the country is safeguarded from American-supported destabilization. It’s true that the opportunity to provide the US a reliable backup source of oil was advantageous to both sides – the US was able to diversify its imports while Angola’s MPLA ruling party could “make nice” with their former enemy and bring in much-needed revenue directly from the dollar’s source – but there’s nothing in this relationship that can’t be substituted by another actor, such as the US depending more on Nigeria and Angola on China, for example.

Neither side inherently ‘needs’ the other, though their energy partnership is for now a win-win arrangement that could indefinitely continue so long as the US wants it to. There’s no sensible reason why the US would want to change this relationship except in the event that its domestic fracking production picks back up and Angolan imports are no longer required at their current level, but even then, it’s more prone to simply decrease its purchases and not overthrow the government. However, when analyzed from a broader strategic perspective, for as positive as the US’ relations with Angola presently are (especially in the energy sector), they’re not influential enough to get Luanda to use its exports to China as a proxy instrument of American pressure against Beijing. Therefore, aside from the already presumed Law of Hybrid War motivation for destabilizing Angola as a means of disrupting the multipolar transnational connective infrastructure project (STAR) running through its territory, the other reason that the US has for doing this is to create an opportunity for an allied political force to seize power and subsequently exert indirect American influence over China’s main African source of oil.

This by itself isn’t a coup de grace against Beijing, but combined with other energy-related Hybrid Wars all across the world, could contribute to crafting a future where the US in one form or another acquires the power to disrupt, control, and influence most of China’s foreign energy sources, which in that case would give Washington unthinkable leverage over Beijing and possibly even end the New Cold War with a unipolar victory. This is why the US might seek to support a second UNITA insurgency in Angola – not to ‘steal’ the oil for itself, but to establish a degree of control over it so that it could deny it to its competitors in the future, similar in essence to the reason why the US launched the War on Iraq. Behind the rhetorical polemics about “democracy” and “weapons of mass destruction”, one of the realpolitik ‘justifications’ other than geostrategically rearranging the Mideast was always for the US to directly or indirectly control its rivals’ oil, whether through an on-the-ground occupation or an allied proxy government, both of which did not yield the expected results for a wide range of reasons. Despite being an expensive failure in the Iraqi case, the strategic ‘reasoning’ behind the war is still attractive to the minds of the US’ zero-sum “deep state” decision makers, which is why they may be tempted to wage a Hybrid War on Angola.

The Insurgent Trigger

The most realistic circumstances under which UNITA might try to return to the forefront of domestic politics would obviously have to be after President dos Santos’ death or resignation. This is because the 2010 constitution stipulates that the president is no longer directly elected by popular vote, but that the leader of the winning party in parliamentary elections immediately assumes this office. It’s expected that the transfer of power from dos Santos to his future successor will serve as the trigger event for sparking a preplanned Color Revolution driven by demands for a “democratic vote” and other rabble-rousing liberal-progressive rhetoric designed to drum up easily manipulatable popular anger against the authorities. It doesn’t matter too much whether this is directed against scarecrows such as his daughter Isabel or perhaps even a ruling party apparatchik, because what’s important is that UNITA and its affiliated pro-Western NGO allies will work hard to channel the civil society energy that they’ve manufactured so as to improve their odds of ‘democratically’ seizing power.

Needless to say, the government won’t make an exception to the constitution just to please the ‘opposition’, so it’s not predicted that they’ll reinstitute presidential elections, though depending on the circumstances of dos Santos’ succession (whether he unexpectedly passes away in office or initiates a phased leadership transition), there might be early parliamentary elections (which in turn would lead to a new president). UNITA doesn’t stand a chance at winning them, though they’ll try to agilely ride the wave of social discontent amidst the ongoing economic (energy commodities) crisis in order to boost their previous showing of 18% in 2012. Unhappy with not winning the presidency, some of their members may then use the party’s defeat and the indirect elections to that office as the ‘justifications’ for taking back to the bush and waging a low-level insurgency, which they’d of course would expect to receive some level of American support (whether directly acknowledged or indirectly and covertly supplied). It’ll more than likely be the latter, and it doesn’t seem foreseeable that the US will at this time devote too many resources or attention to such a campaign aside from putting it on the backburner as an option to return to in the future whenever the subjective ‘need’ arises (such as the possibility for a grand bargain with China or to disrupt its Angolan energy supplies and STAR).

So as not to be misconstrued, the author is not necessarily predicting that UNITA will indeed take up arms once again, but is instead postulating the scenario under which this might be possible. In any case, it’s not expected that UNITA’s second insurgency will be anything like RENAMO’s in nearby fellow Lusophone Mozambique. The two rebel groups differ for a few reasons, including most importantly the fact that UNITA’s founder was killed in 2002 while RENAMO’s most prominent Cold War-era leader continues to live, lead, and fight. Another factor that can’t be overlooked is that UNITA doesn’t control or lay claim to any physical territory despite its history of support in the eastern regions (which is where they may return to in the event of a second outbreak of conflict), unlike RENAMO which operates in 6 provinces and controls swathes of territory outside the reach of government forces. The last point to be mentioned on this topic is that Angola is already an energy giant while Mozambique is on the path to becoming one. Luanda accordingly has much more money available at its disposal for state-of-the-art weapons purchases that would greatly enhance its ability to defend its sovereignty and carry out anti-terrorist operations against any forthcoming UNITA insurgents, while comparatively poorer Maputo isn’t yet strong enough to do any of this and is thus in a much more vulnerable position that could more easily be exploited.

Cabinda Separatist Crisis:

Background

The exclave of Cabinda (inaccurately called an “enclave” by the main separatist organization) is but a tiny fraction of Angola’s territory and population, but it disproportionately produces 60% of the country’s oil. Luanda won’t ever let this territory go no matter what happens, yet this hasn’t stopped some from trying to fight for independence. The Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) that was spoken about earlier in regards to the Republic of the Congo is the main rebel group operating in the province, and it’s formed from several insurgent organizations that joined together in 1963 in order to optimize their efforts at achieving the shared objective of future state sovereignty.

Perspectives

The way that they see it, the small exorbitantly oil-rich province is being denied what some locals feel is their fair share of the revenue proceeds, which instead must be sent to Luanda and divided amongst the other much poorer provinces. FLEC points to Cabinda’s identity and historical uniqueness relative to the rest of the country and the fact that the territory was briefly administered as its own separate colony by Portugal. They insist that if the oil revenue was concentrated in Cabinda, then the less than one million citizens that inhabit their prospective country would become unimaginably wealthy and achieve the sort of socio-economic development that they feel they’ve been deprived of for decades. Looked at from the opposite angle, the Angolan authorities view Cabinda as an integral part of their country and an irreplaceable source of wealth for the state as a whole. They could convincingly argue that the exclave’s resources have contributed to modernization and development all throughout the country, thus benefiting the greater good of Angolan nationhood as opposed to only a handful of people in a small sliver of land.

Escalations

Regardless of which side is normatively ‘right’ in this conflict, objectively speaking, an upsurge in militant Cabindan separatist activity on whatever grounds it’s argued would have the most immediate potential for destabilizing the state. Angola depends much too heavily on Cabinda to not be affected by an incipient wave of violence there, and even though the oil rigs are far offshore and seemingly untouchable, that still doesn’t mean that disturbances in the mainland portion of the province wouldn’t impact on its maritime counterpart. All that it takes is one or a few high-profile piracy or missile attacks targeting one or some of Angola’s many Western offshore energy investments in order to create panic among the relevant community and engender an immediate and harsh military crackdown. The state rightly recognizes that instability in the jungled interior could thus lead to the inevitable outgrowth of coastal conflict, which is why they absolutely need to contain whatever violence might break out and prevent it from interfering with Angola’s offshore energy extraction.

There’s already evidence that a new wave of insurgent activity is about to strike Cabinda, as seen by FLEC’s surprise attacks against the Angolan military there at the end of July. According to the separatists, they killed 9 government troops and injured 14 in a jungle ambush, and they also called on international oil workers to leave the province. This is a clear statement of intent signaling that plans are already underway for a rebel offensive or return to guerrilla warfare in the coming future, though with foreign contractors likely remaining at their job posts and not heeding FLEC’s call, it seems all but inevitable that some of them will be taken hostage, kidnapped, or killed in the future as part of a dramatic attention-grabbing flare-up in the region. Even with increased private military and Angolan state-provided security, oil workers, their job sites, and barracks are just too soft of targets to be adequately protected at all times, so Angola and its partners need to brace themselves for the possibility that civilians will be caught in the crossfire of a renewed Cabindan secessionist conflict.

Internationalization

Under the present domestic and regional circumstances, the Angolan military is more than capable of dealing with a new Cabindan insurgency, but if this reaches its zenith concurrent with other crises in the country such as an oncoming Color Revolution during next summer’s parliamentary (and thus by indirect extent, presidential) elections, the authorities might be overwhelmed and taken off guard. Additionally, if the US’ succeeds in a future regime change operation in the Republic of the Congo (considering that its most recent lackluster one failed) or the neighboring DRC, then either of these countries could come under the control of American-influenced client regimes that thus become “Lead From Behind” participants in the militant campaign for Cabindan independence. That would not only increase the rebels’ chances of success – whether in achieving independence, drawing the Angolan military into a quagmire, or carving out ‘liberated’ territory (no matter how small) – but it would also spike the possibility of state-to-state violence between Luanda and whichever of the two neighboring governments provides aid to FLEC. This would consequently internationalize the secessionist crisis and massively complicate Angola’s peaceful rise to regional leadership.

Kongo Kingdom Revisionism:

Background

The last Hybrid War scenario in Angola is the least likely to occur in the short-term, but might be the most destabilizing if it suddenly pops up amidst a Color Revolution, a second UNITA insurgency, an intensified Cabindan separatist campaign, or a combination thereof. To explain, approximately 8% of Angolans are of the Bakongo ethnicity, with most of them being concentrated in the northern provinces of Zaire (which is coastal and well-endowed with offshore oil reserves and an LNG processing facility) and Uige where they form a majority of the population. These two regions used to be part of the pre-colonial Kongo Kingdom, which also stretched into Cabinda, the Bas-Congo province of the DRC, and areas of the Republic of the Congo (which is nearly half Bakongo).

Foundational Concept

It’s very difficult for outside observers to gauge the sense of transnational ‘identity togetherness’  that this demographic feels and the potential for it to be politicized into a separatist movement, but it can generally be assumed that foreign-directed NGOs would be instrumental in consolidating this sentiment and manipulating it for geopolitical gains. One of the most probable starting points for the weaponized information campaign of Bakongo nationalism would be the historical experience of the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) rebel group during the civil war period. This organization played a much lesser role than UNITA did, but it nonetheless is relevant in this context for having brought together many Bakongo people under a shared militant banner. When taken together with the historical memory of the Kongo Kingdom, the FNLA functions as the military-political tool for actualizing this territorially revisionist project, no matter if it’s organizationally spread across the tristate region or concentrated in the Angolan-DRC borderlands.

Cross-Border Trouble

The author wasn’t able to find information about any active Bakongo separatist groups in Angola (other than FLEC, with Cabindans being a part of this civilization), but there was one organization in the DRC which repeatedly came up throughout the research as a group to watch. The Bundu dia Kongo (BDK) has been involved in several violent provocations against the Kinshasa authorities, and their main objective is to create a sovereign Bakongo state out of the Bas-Congo province. Clearly, though, this would naturally extend into Angola, both in Zaire and Uige provinces and Cabinda, so the group must automatically also be seen as a threat to Angola’s sovereignty alongside the DRC’s. BDK is troublesome for both states because it could catalyze a conflict between them, whether one in which both governments are fighting the same allied network of interrelated cross-border insurgents or a scenario through which an expansionist regime-changed pro-American DRC uses the group as a proxy lever for destabilizing Angola on America’s behalf.

Scenarios

Both possibilities could happen, with the first one occurring either under the already existing conditions or amidst the type of total-state breakdown that will be discussed in the next chapter about the country, while the second might happen if the DRC decides to devolve along the lines of an “Identity Federation” (whether on its own prerogative or in response to another civil war). If the aforementioned political reconstitution enters into force, then it could be safely inferred that the Bakongo would receive their own quasi-independent statelet in Bas-Congo province which could then be used as a springboard for a revived FNLA Bakongo nationalist movement in Angola. This would naturally merge with the Cabindan separatist campaign that was described above in order to throw most of Angola’s northern borderland into conflict, thereby jeopardizing the government’s oil revenues in Cabinda and Zaire provinces. Ironically, this would be a ‘reverse-Shaba’ in the sense that it wouldn’t be Angolan rebels invading the DRC’s restive Katanga province, but Congolese DRC ones invading the Bakongo frontiers of Angola.

Even though the Benguela railway doesn’t run through any of the forecasted operational areas, it would likely be used in this scenario as an instrument of blackmail by Kinshasa owing to Luanda’s future real-sector economic dependency on this route, which would then in that case totally disrupt China’s cross-continental New Silk Road plans for this part of Africa and fulfill the strategic objective of Hybrid War. Moreover, because of Luanda’s proximity to the DRC border and the Bakongo-majority-inhabited areas of its own internal borderland, if military forces in the DRC ever got powerful enough either in a nationwide sense or a non-state regional one like in Bas-Congo province with the BDK, then they might be able to decisively threaten the Angolan capital under the pretense of staging a ‘humanitarian intervention’ for the Bakongo and thus indefinitely hold out the Damocles’ Sword of regime change over the MPLA.  There is nothing to indicate that this would happen anywhere in the coming future, but it’s still a strategic risk that Angolan policy makers should monitor just in case, as the geopolitical foundation for this danger will never change so long as the borders and their related demographics remain the same as they are today.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently residing in Moscow. Thew views expressed are his own. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

Hybrid Wars 5. Breaking the Balkans

Hybrid Wars 6. Trick To Containing China

Hybrid Wars 7. How The US Could Manufacture A Mess In Myanma

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hybrid Wars and the Geopolitics of South Atlantic Africa. The Russia-China Strategic Outpost

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

Donald J. Trump, Twitter, Feb 9, 2017

It seems in little need of recapitulation, but the Executive Order 13769, otherwise known as “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” has been living a charmed and distorted life.  It sought to ban, for 90 days, the entry of nationals into the United States from seven countries.  The order was subsequently challenged by two states as unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

Its progenitor, the now foamingly livid US President Donald J. Trump, was always labouring under the impression that it would pass muster in its entirety. But then again, The Donald was unaware about the restraining niceties of the US court system.

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had to entertain themselves with yet another appeal from the Trump administration on the urgency of the EO, this time against the decision made by District Judge James J. Robart of the Western District of Washington State to grant a temporary restraining order.

The Executive Order’s enforcement was suspended by the good judge, who deemed it necessary to make his order nationwide in application.  Apoplectic, Trump charged Judge Robart with a lack of competence, suggesting that any deaths resulting to US citizens from this action be placed squarely on his judicial head.  A groan was duly registered in the separation of powers.

Three factors caught the attention of the appeals panel: whether the administration had showed that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; the extent or degree of hardship caused by the stay or its denial; and that ever pressing issue of the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

Even reading this decision, the EO seems linguistically sloppy, misguided and even hallucinatory in seeing threats and fears.  The hallmark of terrorist attacks on US soil, those of September 11, 2001, is seen as a marker, the symbolic point where all justifications issue. Since that date, “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes”.  It followed that the United States had to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The global situation was truly a panic-inducing one, even if some it had been occasioned by the mischief-making of the US war machine.  Many a failed state has had its origins in the carelessly murderous musings of the Pentagon and White House.

The grindstone of war and devastation, according to the EO, globally placed the US at risk, sombrely making Trump reflect that, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.”

The judges of the Ninth Circuit did not waste time diving into the hardship caused.  The government’s case was not being well received.  The Executive Order saw thousands of visas cancelled, hundreds of travellers with such visas prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the US or denied entry at point of arrival.  Instances of detention were also noted.

On the issue of injury, the States had made out that their public universities had been affected, notably in the fields of teaching and their “research missions”.  Students and researchers who were nationals of the seven countries on the banned list were specifically mentioned as being harmed, be it in terms of their study, collaborative ventures, or seeing families. “We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order.”

The Executive Order also fell foul of the due process clause. Trump’s lawyers had not demonstrated sufficiently that the Fifth Amendment had been followed. There had been, for instance, no notice or a hearing prior to restrictions on particular individuals for travel. The government’s assumption here – a point of some alarm to the judges – was that “most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.”

The muddle became apparent in the Order’s lack of discrimination on the status of the traveller.  Did lawful permanent residents have sufficient due process rights when re-entering the US?  Seemingly not.  Had the government provided lawful permanent residents a “constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry”? Again, the answer was no.

The court also showed reluctance in limiting the scope of the restraining order to lawful permanent residents. Nor did the geographic scope of the restraining order require curtailing. To do so would result in a “fragmented immigration policy”. Judge Robart must have been grinning at this point.

Even as the Trump administration’s arguments were being given the full heave-ho, the judges could not resist making a point that the government’s lawyers had done little other than reiterate the need to combat terrorism as a government priority.  Despite being pressed by the bench, and by the lower District Court to adduce evidence that the US was at such immediate and dire risk, nothing was forthcoming.

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack on the United States.” In place of evidence, an impetuous position had been assumed by Trump’s team: the court could not review that decision at all.  Judges often find such dismissive positions uncomfortable, preferring to wade in.  The President, much to his consternation, will have to flog this horse, deadened by three failures, a touch longer.

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Legal Stutters: “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the US”. Trump Falters in the Ninth Circuit Court

Rosa Ortega, a Mexican citizen, has been convicted of voter fraud and sentenced to 8 years in prison in Texas after inadvertently admitting to election officials that she had been voting in Dallas County for years. 

Apparently the voting fraud was discovered by chance after Ortega tried to register to vote in Tarrant County but was rejected after she admitted that she was not actually a citizen of the United States.  While she should have probably just accepted the rejection, Ortega pushed back by arguing that she had already been voting in Dallas County, an argument that drew the attention of investigators.

Ortega’s voting privileges were approved in Dallas after she falsified her application by claiming to be a citizen.  Of course, liberal lawyers, have done a masterful job convincing courts around the country that verifying things like a person’s identity and citizenship status prior to allowing them to vote is unconstitutional.  Per CBS:

 Prosecutors say the reason officials at the elections department in Dallas didn’t stop the voter fraud from happening is because Rosa Ortega claimed she was a citizen on her application.

Now the Tarrant County D.A.’s office is calling for those claims to be verified before handing out registration cards.

Prosecutors said whether this case prompts elections officials to verify citizenship is an issue for the legislature.

As you may recall, we wrote about a similar incident back in September in which the Cascade Mall shooter, a Turkish citizen, who killed 5 people in the state of Washington was found to have also been illegally voting for years.  And, just like the case above, Washington’s Secretary of State noted that there was no way to prevent the voter fraud because “we don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship.”

  We don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship.  So, we’re in this place where we want to make sure we’re maintaining people’s confidence in the elections and the integrity of the process, but also that we’re giving this individual, like we would any voter, his due process. We’re moving forward, and that investigation is really coming out of the investigation from the shootings.

The penalties are very serious. That’s why we want to make sure we’re very measured, and this is why we want to make sure we’re very calm and purposeful in how we move forward.  The stakes are very high on both sides. You want to keep the confidence level high, but you also want to protect the voting rights of everyone.

Our hands are kind of tied, but make no mistake, we want to make sure that everybody has confidence that people casting ballots are eligible. This is certainly going to be a topic at next legislation.

Of course, Ortega’s lawyer tried to argue that a learning disability made it impossible for her to comprehend the complex laws that allow only U.S. citizens to vote in U.S. elections…Sure, because why wouldn’t Mexican citizens be allowed to vote in the U.S.? 

  Her attorney said she has a learning disability and was confused about the difference between being a citizen and a legal resident, so she thought she was allowed to vote.

“The jury didn’t believe that story. They believed that the defendant knew exactly what she was doing, and they responded accordingly,” Prosecutor Jonathan White said.

“Once she gets out of prison and she’s deported, does she bring her four minor children to Mexico? As a mother I think that would be a difficult choice for her,” Birdsall said.

We’re currently awaiting confirmation from Democrats and MSNBC that there is still no concrete evidence of voter fraud and that Trump’s vow to conduct a “major investigation” into the topic is still just a political sham.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Voter Fraud? – Mexican Citizen Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison after Illegally Voting in Texas

In response to the establishment media’s contrived ‘fake news’ crisis designed to marginalise independent and alternative media sources of news and analysis, 21WIRE is running its own #FakeNewsWeek awareness campaign, where each day our editorial team at 21st Century Wire will feature media critiques and analysis of mainstream corporate media coverage of current events – exposing the government and the mainstream media as the real purveyors of ‘fake news’ throughout modern history…

Understanding the complex relationships that make up human endeavors permeates every aspect of society and politics. The ability to be informed about events is a basic motivation to search out news about what is exactly happening in the world we all live in.

Journalism purports to report the first draft of history. In practice, the press and media coverage is systemically bereft of relevant facts and completely void of objectivity. The currency of the realm is trust for all journalists. Their collective credibility is bankrupt for a very simple reason; their newscasts are based upon lies, newspeak and intentional deception.

1 Fake News Media Propaganda copy

Carlin Romano in We Need ‘Philosophy of Journalism’, asks an essential question that is not at all addressed by the Fourth Estate: “How can it be that journalism and philosophy, the two humanistic intellectual activities that most boldly (and some think obnoxiously) vaunt their primary devotion to truth, are barely on speaking terms?”

Essentially, every component of the mainstream media multiplex is foremost a business. The business model is to operate under the aegis of monopolies. Even a casual observation of the interlocking ownership of big media must acknowledge that the concentration of likeminded Oligopolists are in unison to construct a consortium of predisposed narratives that has nothing to do with seeking the truth.

When the term Pressitude is used to characterize the profession, the uninformed or limited literate news consumers often find comfort in turning on their network disinformation program. Those who take pride in obtaining their news from ‘papers of record’ like the New York Times and the Washington Post rely upon a different motivation. Their aversion to any source that contradicts the establishment worldview is so painful to consider that they adopt a feeble rationalization for self-preservation, which demands rejection of any argument, verifiable facts or documented evidence that challenges their scripted storyline of reality.

The example of Sharyl Attkisson, and Judith Miller, have been treated differently by their own employers. The first demonstrating courageous investigative reporting; whereas the second produced a fabricated account that deceived the public about nonexistent WMDs in Iraq. Attkisson was ostracized, while Miller is now a FOX News contributor.

Miller’s Pulitzer Prize, awarded while employed by the NYT – is no badge of honor. The term “Yellow Journalism” is most closely associated with Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Their sensational duelling newspapers and extra editions shared the “Fake News” prototype during the late 19th century and early 20th century. What once was conveyed by a cartoon image is now a 24/7 cable news cycle. Granted, the 21st century is different, but the spin and outright lies follow the same pattern of misinformation. Deception, falsification and distortion are absorbed as nonchalantly as a My Pillow advertisement that inundates the propaganda that masquerades as news.

The orthodox version of American media journalism was crafted under the guidance of William S. Paley of CBS, setting the highest standard for news reporting at that time. Names like Edward R. Murrow, Elmer Davis, William L. Shirer, Charles Collingwood, Howard K. Smith and Eric Sevareid are icons in the industry. For those who contend that this era invented “The most trusted man in America” Walter Cronkite, one must not forget that the broadcast news division ran budget deficits, while the parent network was most profitable.

1 Edward Bernays
Yet for all the celebrated accolades that CBS News coveted, the underlying message behind the script was Edward Bernays’ propaganda. Fast forward to the internet age and you find that these one-time news bureaus no longer control their monopoly over the news cycle.

Immediacy in information dissemination no longer guarantees accuracy in the report anymore than corporatist editing ensures the believability of the popularly accepted viewpoint. Nevertheless, the predominant originator of “Fake News” comes from a far more sinister source; government brainwashing. Indeed, at the very core of vast news media apparatus are state-sponsored operatives and embeds. Any pretense that there is any independence within establishment media outlets is a symptom of the chronic idiocy within the popular culture. Inserting the government fake news version, using unreliable sources to shape an echo chamber of official fiction is the paradigm for mass indoctrination. Controlling gatekeepers to filter out any conflicting accounts uses both covert and overt censorship. The flagship news purveyors devote their resources to discredit genuine freelance reporting from any ideological perspectives. Mainstream Media (MSM) has the mission to smear any alternative news source and label them as disrepute journalists.

The American Press Institute states that Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. Then refines this criterion by adding conditionality to the standard: “Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but in a capacity that is more down to earth.”

By inserting a subjective value element, any reasonable expectation that the work product is trustworthy is suspect. It becomes the task of the reader or viewer to critically analyze the underlying bias and intention to inculcate the culture.  When Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase, “The medium is the message,” he was foreseeing the extent of the newspeak affixed within the medium was not fully appreciated.

Corporations select journalists for their adherence to nihilism in reporting. The MSM’s denial of objective facts and practicing deception by generating actual fake news has produced generations of naïve, ill-informed and confused souls – placing a purdah veil over the heads of trendy clones, fostering the shearing of the sheeple society.

Escaping this planet of press corps apes requires a withdrawal from the sophism. The coordinated accusations of “Fake News” attacks by the dinosaur media upon autonomous internet reporting is a sure sign that suppressing truth to power is the only storyline that matters to these secular relativists and muckraking crusaders to maintain their stranglehold on headline sound bites.

The selection agenda which determines what constitutes news is an editorial function that bears witness to the parameters for public conditioning. All other reporting is declared as ‘conspiracy theory.’ Even a casual assessment of the foreign press provides a contrast to the perception spin machine from K Street or Madison Avenue. As the monopoly media manipulation resorts to their faux news narrative, astute observers understand that their broadcast lies are the real Fake News.

***
Author SARTRE is a special contributor to 21st Century Wire. Learn more about his writing and join-in on more forum discussions at BATR.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mainstream Media: All the Fake News That’s Fit to Print

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! 

– Tweet from Donald J. Trump, February 9, 2017

Trump’s screaming tweet, complete with all caps in the original, captures the essence of this president’s bold move to take total power over the United States.

When he says “the security of our nation is at stake,” he refers demagogically to the imaginary threat of terrorists from seven countries. He is right to say “the security of our nation is at stake,” but not at all in the way he means – the security of our nation is profoundly at stake in this case because, if he wins, then presidential orders will become dictatorial decrees beyond the reach of the courts. Our constitutional crisis continues.

At issue is Executive Order 13769, issued January 27, 2017, establishing the so-called Muslim ban on immigrants from seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya). The order was prepared with limited vetting and implemented with no advance planning, creating immediate, global chaos that led to numerous court challenges and partial stays of the order. The case brought January 30 by the states of Washington and Minnesota together persuaded a Washington State judge (appointed by President Bush) to issue a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining the U.S. government from enforcing key provisions of the Executive Order (which the government apparently took its time to obey). The government’s motion for an emergency stay of the TRO was heard February 7 by a three-judge federal district Appeals Court (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court). On February 9, the Appeals Court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling and left the TRO in place, unmodified, until the lower court holds a duly-scheduled hearing of the government’s appeal of the TRO before deciding whether to make the TRO permanent.

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)

Trump’s Executive Order has created a watershed crisis in U.S. constitutional government. Trump fired an acting attorney general for questioning his order’s constitutionality and legality. Several lower federal courts have found the order, in the words of the Appeals Court, “unconstitutional and violative of federal law.” The issue is likely to reach the Supreme Court before long. If the Supreme Court rules for the president, then he will be able to rule by decree. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts, that will check the president’s power to rule by decree, but only until the next challenge to the U.S. Constitution’s traditional balance of powers.

9th Circuit Appeals Court rejects attack on Constitution

What follows is a brief summary of the Appeals Court’s 29-page order, including the constitutional issues that court identified. The language of the Appeals Court order is as restrained and dignified as the president’s tweets are hysterical and outrageous. The court begins (p. 3) by stating the basis for deciding the issue:

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

In sketching the background for the Executive Order, the court notes (p. 3) that the only specific attack or threat cited to justify the danger to national security is 9/11. The court described elements of the Executive Order and their impact as they were implemented.

In a February 10 tweet, President Trump asserted:

LAWFARE: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this (the) statute.” A disgraceful decision!

Since the court cites the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. (p. 4), it’s not clear what statute Trump had in mind. The court also wrote (p. 6) that in issuing its initial restraining order:

The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful.

The U.S. government claimed that the states had no standing to sue, no right to sue, because the states had not suffered sufficient injury from the Executive Order. The government did not dispute that the state universities “are branches of the States under state law” (p.8). After reviewing the impact of the Executive Order on members of the state universities, the court held (p.12):

We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.

According to government lawyers, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to review any presidential orders “to suspend the admission of any class of aliens: (p. 13). The government argues that such orders are even more unreviewable when the president is motivated by national security claims, even if the orders violate constitutional rights and protections. The government claims that court review of unconstitutional orders violates the principle of separation of powers in government. The court rejects these arguments (p. 14):

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy…. Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches….” We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.

The court notes (p.15) that the government is so desperate to find support for its claims that it misquotes from a case (Kleindienst v. Mandel) to reach a false conclusion. Even in national security cases, the courts have a legitimate role, contrary to the government argument. The court points out that, while the Supreme Court counsels deference to national security decisions of the White House or Congress, the Supreme Court also made clear that (pp. 17-18):

… the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war…. it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.

Addressing the government’s motion to stay the lower court order, the Appeals Court points out that a stay is not a matter of right, but a matter of court discretion based on the particular circumstances of the case. The government, by requesting the stay, bears the burden of showing that those circumstances support the request:

Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” [citation omitted]

The court concludes that the government fails to satisfy any of the four criteria. The court cites the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requirement that “No person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law …” and describes the government position in quietly scathing terms (pp. 19-20):

The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause. [emphasis added]

To make this argument, the government lawyers must ignore the plain language of the Constitution referring to “No person” and hope that no one notices that the individuals affected by the Executive Order are, in fact, living, breathing persons. People noticed, and people noticed that this attitude is authoritarian and in antithesis to American democratic standards.

The government tries to mitigate the Executive Order by referring to an “Authoritative Guidance” issued by White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn addressing and seeking to remedy certain portions of the order relating to lawful permanent residents. The court rejects this government argument with withering dry scorn (pp. 21-22):

The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely. Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments.

In analyzing this and other poorly thought out, incomplete, and incompetent aspects of the government’s case, the court points out (p. 24) that “it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order.” What the court says, with somewhat sly due deference, is that it’s up to the White House to do its job correctly.

The court turns to the states’ argument that the Executive Order violates both the Constitution’s First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. White citing Supreme Court holdings supporting the states’ argument, the Appeals Court chooses not to address it in the context of the government’s emergency motion. The court reserves the right to address the issues when the appeal of the TRO is heard.

Although the court does not address it directly, the underlying absurdity of the Executive Order is that it is based on fear-mongering over imaginary threats. If the “terrorist threats” endlessly uttered by the Chicken Littles of government and media had any basis in reality, then suspending the Executive Order might actually be dangerous and might even lead to “irreparable injury.” The court rejects that government argument, too (p.26):

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury…. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years. The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. [emphasis added]

In contrast, the court found that the states had provided ample evidence that the Executive Order had already caused irreparable damage to some people and that, if reinstated, it would cause irreparable damage to many more.

Assessing the general public interest, the court saw favorable arguments on both sides. The public has a “powerful interest in national security,” but the public also has an interest in “free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.” At this point, the court denies the government’s motion for an emergency stay, in effect because there is no perceptible emergency. Or rather there is no emergency as the government defines it. Taken as a whole, the court’s order illustrates a serious constitutional emergency perpetrated by the president against his own government and people. While the court doesn’t list other public interests, the public also surely has a substantial interest in a government that follows the constitutional due process of law, that acts in good faith, that supports its arguments with facts based in reality, and that does not claim the right to act dictatorially with no checks and balances.

White House acts as if it is not only ABOVE the law, it IS the law

Late on February 10, Trump administration sources said there would be no appeal of this decision to the Supreme Court. That leaves the future district court decision as a possible vehicle for a Supreme Court ruling. But late on February 10, the president hinted at just issuing a brand new Executive Order (adding “I like to surprise you.”). This might be good for the White House, avoiding a possible Supreme Court decision requiring them to act within the constitutional framework of the law. That might also be better than a Supreme Court decision that reinforced the president’s power to rule by decree. We don’t know how far the Supreme Court will go either for ideology or to protect judicial authority. We can be pretty sure that our constitutional crisis will not be over any time soon, and may not turn out well for the Constitution.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Towards a “Democratic Dictatorship”? Constitutional Crisis Deepens as Trump Fights “Checks and Balances”

‘If the Captain of Chaos wants to disrupt everything—including resetting relations with little ol’ Canada—Palin would be the one to break the china’

Rumors that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin could be the next ambassador to Canada have been met with a resounding “No Siree,” as Canadians this week have erupted in a chorus of (hilarious) outrage.

The backlash erupted after White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday refused to rule out the appointment when questioned directly.

Sarah Palin "represents the descent of politics," wrote the Ottawa Citizen's Andrew Cohen. "We see today a direct line from Palin to Trump. Politically, Trump is Palin's child." (Photo: AP)

Sarah Palin “represents the descent of politics,” wrote the Ottawa Citizen‘s Andrew Cohen.
“We see today a direct line from Palin to Trump. Politically, Trump is Palin’s child.” (Photo: AP)

“We have no additional ambassador nominations or announcements to make on that front,” Spicer told reporters. “I’m sure at some point we will have, soon.” Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau is expected to meet with U.S. Donald Trump on Monday.

Several Canadian lawmakers swiftly responded with their own thoughts on the reports.

“Well that would show how little Steve Bannon and his pal @realDonaldTrump think of Canada,” Member of Parliament (MP) Charlie Angus wrote on social media. Fellow New Democrat Nathan Cullen said Palin’s appointment would be “tantamount to having to deal with two Donald Trumps,” according to CBC News.

“She has never been very comfortable with the truth,” Cullen told reporters on Thursday. “Couldn’t recognize it most mornings if it jumped up and knocked her on the head.”

In a searing op-edOttawa Citizen columnist Andrew Cohen argued that the appointment would not be out of the realm of possibility for Trump and warned that if appointed, the former vice presidential candidate and reality TV star “would bring her traveling carnival to Canada.”

“If the Captain of Chaos wants to disrupt everything—including resetting relations with little ol’ Canada—Palin would be the one to break the china,” Cohen wrote. Palin, he continued, “represents the descent of politics. We see today a direct line from Palin to Trump. Politically, Trump is Palin’s child.”

Should she be appointed, Cohen concluded, she would remind Canada, “lest we forget, of our new life through the looking glass.”

As the rumors percolated, other neighbors to the north took to Twitter to voice their opposition and to revel in the morose comedy of it all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notably, there is growing concern among Canadians over Trump’s so-called “America First” strategy. A new survey found that the majority of citizens want Trudeau to stand up for the nation’s economic interests during upcoming trade negotiations and 58 percent “would support a trade war with the U.S. if the Trump administration slapped new tariffs on Canadian exports,” the Globe and Mail reported Thursday.

At the same time, there has been growing pressure on Trudeau and other Canadian lawmakers to counter Trump’s travel ban by lifting its cap on refugee resettlement.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rumors of Sarah Palin as US Ambassador to Canada Met With Hilarious Outrage

It has been two months since the South Korean National Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of impeaching Park Geun-hye for her involvement in the corruption scandal with her confidante Choi Soon-sil, and South Korean citizens are growing concerned about the Constitutional Court, which is deliberating whether to uphold or dismiss the impeachment motion. To add to the uncertainty surrounding the impeachment trial, the special prosecutor charged with investigating the corruption scandal has yet to obtain access to the evidence it needs to prosecute Park.

The Constitutional Court faces delays as Park’s legal team continues to request additional witnesses for examination. This week, Park’s lawyers pressured the Constitutional Court to consider taking on 17 more witnesses. The Court ended up scheduling eight witnesses to take the stand in the next few weeks, so it is highly unlikely that it will reach a verdict before March, as was widely expected. Members of the National Assembly’s impeachment committee have accused Park’s representatives of requesting an endless list of witnesses as a tactic to delay the court’s decision. They were also critical of the Constitutional Court for its inability to push the trial process along.

Park Geun-hye Impedes Impeachment Verdict, Refuses Cooperation with Corruption Probe

On February 8, lawmakers of the opposition parties demanded the Constitutional Court reach its final verdict before March 13, when the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court Lee Jung-mi is scheduled to retire. Lee instructed representatives of Park Geun-hye and the National Assembly’s impeachment committee to submit their closing arguments by February 23. If the Constitutional Court allows the trial to move forward as scheduled without further delay, there is a chance that the final verdict will be announced before March 13. If the trial is delayed beyond March 13, however, only seven active judges (of the usual nine) will remain to make the final verdict. The previous Chief Justice Park Han-chul retired after completing his term last month.

As the courtroom drama drags on, the South Korean people are gearing up to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to make a swift decision. On February 10, the Emergency Task Force to Remove the Park Geun-hye Administration and other civil society groups called for one million people to take to the streets again for the 15th candlelight action on Saturday, February 11. The task force is aiming to pressure the court to rule in favor of impeachment and put an end to the Park administration’s abomination before the end of February. They will also march to the Blue House to demand the resignation of acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn, who served as the prime minister under Park Geun-hye.

Time Running Out for Special Prosecutor

Protestors performing arrest of Park Geun-hye and Samsung vice president Lee Jae-yong; Photo -- Voice of People

Earlier in the week, the independent special prosecutor charged with investigating the “Choi Soon-sil/Park Geun-hye gate” scandal was scheduled to interrogate Park Geun-hye about her involvement with Choi Soon-sil in the corruption scandal. The team had agreed with Park’s lawyers to arrange for Park to be questioned on February 9.

At the last minute, however, Park Geun-hye’s legal counsel abruptly called off the interview. Park’s legal team accused the prosecution of violating a prior agreement by releasing the date of the president’s interview to the public. The prosecution team, however, denied the allegation. Time is running out with fewer than 20 days remaining in the special prosecutor’s investigation mandate. And the prosecution side has yet to obtain enough evidence to prove Park’s direct involvement in corrupt dealings with private corporations, such as Samsung. The Blue House has also refused to cooperate. Last week, the presidential office prevented members of the special prosecution team from carrying out a search and seizure at the Blue House and cited concerns around security of classified military information.

The special prosecution team could be granted an extension for its investigation, but it is highly unlikely, as it requires the approval of the acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn. On February 10, National Assembly lawmakers asked Hwang whether he would extend the special prosecution team’s mandate should it fail to complete its investigation before the deadline at the end of February. Hwang responded,

“There are still 20 days remaining in the investigation period. What is important is to conduct the investigation for that duration… it is not appropriate to talk about extending the special prosecution mandate… the special prosecution team must do its best.”

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on South Korea’s Defunct President Park Impedes Impeachment Verdict, Refuses Cooperation with Corruption Probe

It has been two months since the South Korean National Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of impeaching Park Geun-hye for her involvement in the corruption scandal with her confidante Choi Soon-sil, and South Korean citizens are growing concerned about the Constitutional Court, which is deliberating whether to uphold or dismiss the impeachment motion. To add to the uncertainty surrounding the impeachment trial, the special prosecutor charged with investigating the corruption scandal has yet to obtain access to the evidence it needs to prosecute Park.

The Constitutional Court faces delays as Park’s legal team continues to request additional witnesses for examination. This week, Park’s lawyers pressured the Constitutional Court to consider taking on 17 more witnesses. The Court ended up scheduling eight witnesses to take the stand in the next few weeks, so it is highly unlikely that it will reach a verdict before March, as was widely expected. Members of the National Assembly’s impeachment committee have accused Park’s representatives of requesting an endless list of witnesses as a tactic to delay the court’s decision. They were also critical of the Constitutional Court for its inability to push the trial process along.

Park Geun-hye Impedes Impeachment Verdict, Refuses Cooperation with Corruption Probe

On February 8, lawmakers of the opposition parties demanded the Constitutional Court reach its final verdict before March 13, when the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court Lee Jung-mi is scheduled to retire. Lee instructed representatives of Park Geun-hye and the National Assembly’s impeachment committee to submit their closing arguments by February 23. If the Constitutional Court allows the trial to move forward as scheduled without further delay, there is a chance that the final verdict will be announced before March 13. If the trial is delayed beyond March 13, however, only seven active judges (of the usual nine) will remain to make the final verdict. The previous Chief Justice Park Han-chul retired after completing his term last month.

As the courtroom drama drags on, the South Korean people are gearing up to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to make a swift decision. On February 10, the Emergency Task Force to Remove the Park Geun-hye Administration and other civil society groups called for one million people to take to the streets again for the 15th candlelight action on Saturday, February 11. The task force is aiming to pressure the court to rule in favor of impeachment and put an end to the Park administration’s abomination before the end of February. They will also march to the Blue House to demand the resignation of acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn, who served as the prime minister under Park Geun-hye.

Time Running Out for Special Prosecutor

Protestors performing arrest of Park Geun-hye and Samsung vice president Lee Jae-yong; Photo -- Voice of People

Earlier in the week, the independent special prosecutor charged with investigating the “Choi Soon-sil/Park Geun-hye gate” scandal was scheduled to interrogate Park Geun-hye about her involvement with Choi Soon-sil in the corruption scandal. The team had agreed with Park’s lawyers to arrange for Park to be questioned on February 9.

At the last minute, however, Park Geun-hye’s legal counsel abruptly called off the interview. Park’s legal team accused the prosecution of violating a prior agreement by releasing the date of the president’s interview to the public. The prosecution team, however, denied the allegation. Time is running out with fewer than 20 days remaining in the special prosecutor’s investigation mandate. And the prosecution side has yet to obtain enough evidence to prove Park’s direct involvement in corrupt dealings with private corporations, such as Samsung. The Blue House has also refused to cooperate. Last week, the presidential office prevented members of the special prosecution team from carrying out a search and seizure at the Blue House and cited concerns around security of classified military information.

The special prosecution team could be granted an extension for its investigation, but it is highly unlikely, as it requires the approval of the acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn. On February 10, National Assembly lawmakers asked Hwang whether he would extend the special prosecution team’s mandate should it fail to complete its investigation before the deadline at the end of February. Hwang responded,

“There are still 20 days remaining in the investigation period. What is important is to conduct the investigation for that duration… it is not appropriate to talk about extending the special prosecution mandate… the special prosecution team must do its best.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on South Korea’s Defunct President Park Impedes Impeachment Verdict, Refuses Cooperation with Corruption Probe

The U.S Empire, which serves narrow oligarch[1] special interests, rather than broad-based national interests, always uses the banner of “human rights” as a pretext for criminal invasions, but the invasions, at least since 9/11, are NEVER about human rights.

Quite the opposite.

Recently, as an example, U.S coalition warplanes deliberately, and criminally, bombed bridges and water lines serving the city of Raqqa, Syria, all for the benefit of the U.S terrorist proxies occupying and terrorizing the city.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book directly from Global Research

Targeting civilians for death and destruction is U.S military strategy, well-honed during previous illegal invasions of other countries, including Iraq and Libya.

If the criminal cabal driving the Empire’s mass-murdering, country and international law-destroying overseas holocaust did use human rights as a reason for invasion, then it would be invading itself. The US has among the highest rates of incarceration[2] in the world, stratospheric child-poverty rates[3], a foreign policy consisting of war crimes, and a well-honed apparatus for torturing[4] people globally etc.

But the fake “humanitarian” pretexts regularly fool and tame the MSM–consuming masses, thus engineering consent for more war crimes of the highest order.

A recently-released Amnesty International Report[5] – based on hearsay, and fabricated in the U.K — fails all tests of validity, but nonetheless serves the Pentagon’s strategy of “information dominance”[6], codified in U.S law with the passage of HR5181[7], which provides a framework for “countering” and “refuting” narratives that do not align with U.S propaganda narratives.

All of the war lies about Syria, covered and repeated incessantly by MSM fake news, have been discredited.  Assad is not a brutal dictator.  He does not willfully bomb his own people.  He does not “kill his own people”, nor does he gas his own people. And so the next Big Lie is the Amnesty fake news story, dutifully reported and legitimized, of course, by MSM fake news.

 

— Prof Tim Anderson

The Amnesty lie serves to obscure the increasingly obvious real story about Syria, including the nature of the West’s terrorist proxies,[8] and the crimes[9] that they commit.

The criminal narratives of the warmongering oligarch class need to be replaced with on-the-ground real news about Syria, and the real news tells us that Syria is winning the battle against the NATO et al. terrorists.  This should be cause for celebration[10].

[7] Mark Taliano, Voices From Syria, Global Research Publishers, 23

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Amnesty “Fake News” on Syria. “Human Rights” as a Pretext for Criminal Invasions

In the 1980s the Mur was the only “dead river” in Austria. It was poisoned by many different kinds of chemical wastewaters, mainly from papermills. “Drink one glass of Mur-water and you will die.”, my teacher told me and my classmates in those years.

Then chlorine bleaching was forbidden, wastewater treatment became common and the river began to recover. In the late 1990s the water quality of our river which is called “the green Mur” in the Styrian anthem became much better.

The banks of the Mur are covered by  trees – a lot of them are centuries old, with much more than one meter in diameter. The green ribbon of our Mur is – like the famous clocktower – one of the most important landmarks of Graz for residents and tourists alike.

The river is flowing fast with about 200 cubic meters per second and there is even whitewater (3rd degree) in the middle of the city. In summer we have a lot of people sitting on the big stones under the old trees, enjoying the sound of the wild water or surfing in the huge standing waves or simply relaxing. A beautiful place. It’s one of the things which make living in our city nice.

Now the river is in danger of being killed again – this time not by poisoning, but through ruthless corrupted politics. The green oasis of trees and the original old face of the city are scheduled to be sacrificed in order to build a river power plant.

For only a little more then 10 MW of electrical power the beautiful, historical old face of the city will be destroyed. Three big powerstations in the vicinity (all together much more than 1000 MW) are working in a very low operating grade about 30%, another newly built gas power plant was closed due to a lack of demand but nevertheless officials who seem to be densely interlaced with the building sector tried to convince the citizens of the necessity of the river power plant.

Adviser firms have done their best to prevent the whole thing from looking like corruption, but the striking disproportion between a ridiculous little yield of energy and so much destruction of century-old nature and recovery space in my hometown does not allow any other conclusion than corruption at the cost of us, the people of Graz.

On the 21st of January thousands of protesters marched in our streets, to bring around the administration. But they continue their ruthless plan of destruction. To see that happen hurts like the loss of a beloved person. Politicians use the local media to twist what we say and to suppress what we feel. 

Daniel Vidic, born and living in Graz, Austria

Prepress technician (gravure) for food packaging

Hobbies: Canoeing, Hanggliding (flight instructor), climbing, mountaineering

Notes

1. Youtube-Video: Mur-march (04. jan. 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S_FpeJ7JM8

2. Youtube-video 4000 marching people to save the mur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPKfeojHglM

3. Website “Save the Mur”

http://wwwrettetdiemur.at

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Austria’s Dead River: The Destruction of the Green Mur River in the City of Graz

A clean-up mission using a remotely operated robot at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has had to be aborted, as officials feared they could completely lose control of the probe affected by unexpectedly high levels of radiation.

The robot equipped with a high-pressure water pump and a camera designed to withstand up to 1,000 Sieverts of cumulative exposure had been pulled off the inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex earlier this week, The Japan Times reported Friday, citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The device reportedly broke down just two hour into the probe.

The failure led experts to rethink estimated levels of radiation inside the damaged reactor.

While last week TEPCO said it might stand at 530 Sieverts per hour – a dose that can almost instantly kill a human being, following the latest aborted mission a company official has said a reading of up to 600 Sieverts should be “basically correct.”

Even despite the considerable 30-percent margin of error for the revised estimate, the latest probe left no doubt that radiation levels are at record highs within the reactor. Even though it cannot be measured directly with a Geiger counter or dosimeter, the dose is calculated by its effect on the equipment.

Last month, a hole of no less than one square meter in size was discovered beneath the same reactor’s pressure vessel. The apparent opening in the metal grating is believed to have been caused by melted nuclear fuel, TEPCO then said.

The recent mission has demonstrated that the melted fuel is close to the studied area.

While extreme radiation levels have been registered within the reactor, officials insist that no leaks or increases outside have been detected.

The failure might force Japan to rethink the robot-based strategy it has adopted for locating melted fuel at Fukushima, according to The Japan Times.

The robot affected by radiation was supposed to wash off thick layers of dirt and other wreckage, clearing ways for another remotely controlled probe to enter the area, tasked with carrying out a more proper investigation to assess the state of the damaged nuclear reactor. Previously, even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have crumbled and shut down affected by the radioactive substance inside the reactor.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a blackout and subsequent failure of its cooling systems in March 2011, when it was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Three of the plant’s six reactors were hit by meltdowns, making the Fukushima nuclear disaster the worst since the Chernobyl catastrophe in Ukraine in 1986. TEPCO is so far in the early stages of assessing the damage, with the decommissioning of the nuclear facility expected to take decades.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Extremely High Radiation Breaks down Fukushima “Clean-Up Robot” at Damaged Nuclear Reactor

A clean-up mission using a remotely operated robot at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has had to be aborted, as officials feared they could completely lose control of the probe affected by unexpectedly high levels of radiation.

The robot equipped with a high-pressure water pump and a camera designed to withstand up to 1,000 Sieverts of cumulative exposure had been pulled off the inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex earlier this week, The Japan Times reported Friday, citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The device reportedly broke down just two hour into the probe.

The failure led experts to rethink estimated levels of radiation inside the damaged reactor.

While last week TEPCO said it might stand at 530 Sieverts per hour – a dose that can almost instantly kill a human being, following the latest aborted mission a company official has said a reading of up to 600 Sieverts should be “basically correct.”

Even despite the considerable 30-percent margin of error for the revised estimate, the latest probe left no doubt that radiation levels are at record highs within the reactor. Even though it cannot be measured directly with a Geiger counter or dosimeter, the dose is calculated by its effect on the equipment.

Last month, a hole of no less than one square meter in size was discovered beneath the same reactor’s pressure vessel. The apparent opening in the metal grating is believed to have been caused by melted nuclear fuel, TEPCO then said.

The recent mission has demonstrated that the melted fuel is close to the studied area.

While extreme radiation levels have been registered within the reactor, officials insist that no leaks or increases outside have been detected.

The failure might force Japan to rethink the robot-based strategy it has adopted for locating melted fuel at Fukushima, according to The Japan Times.

The robot affected by radiation was supposed to wash off thick layers of dirt and other wreckage, clearing ways for another remotely controlled probe to enter the area, tasked with carrying out a more proper investigation to assess the state of the damaged nuclear reactor. Previously, even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have crumbled and shut down affected by the radioactive substance inside the reactor.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a blackout and subsequent failure of its cooling systems in March 2011, when it was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Three of the plant’s six reactors were hit by meltdowns, making the Fukushima nuclear disaster the worst since the Chernobyl catastrophe in Ukraine in 1986. TEPCO is so far in the early stages of assessing the damage, with the decommissioning of the nuclear facility expected to take decades.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Extremely High Radiation Breaks down Fukushima “Clean-Up Robot” at Damaged Nuclear Reactor

With major media featuring fake news, Net Neutrality is key to keeping the Internet free and open, letting users access all content without restrictions, limitations, or discrimination, an online level playing field for everyone. 

First Amendment rights depend on it. Without Net Neutrality, consumer choice will be lost, stolen by corporate predators, making the Internet look like cable TV, letting communication giants decide what web sites, content and applications are available at what cost.

Net Neutrality is essential to assure no content is favored over others. Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) legal director Corynne McSherry expressed concern about Trump’s new FCC director Ajit Pai “taking steps to undermine Net Neutrality protections,” adding:

“If so, we, and millions of Internet users, will do what is necessary to defend a free and open Internet.” Separately, EFF raised concerns about FCC opposition to encryption under Pai, urging tech companies to defend and preserve it along with Net Neutrality and privacy rights.

FreePress.net said “everything (it) fought for at the FCC is in jeopardy” under Pai. Previously he was a corporate lawyer for Verizon Communications, involved in regulatory and broadband issues, among others.

At the FCC, he held several positions in its Office of General Counsel, most prominently as deputy general counsel. He also practiced law at Washington-based Jenner & Block, specializing in communications practice.

In 2011, Obama named him an FCC commissioner. He strongly opposes regulations, prioritizes their removal. In 2015, he opposed the FCC’s Open Internet Order. Last December, he said Net Neutrality’s days are “numbered.”

In January, Free Press CEO Craig Aaron blasted Pai, saying he’s “been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come before the FCC during his tenure.”

He’s never met a mega-merger he didn’t like or a public safeguard he didn’t try to undermine. He’s been an inveterate opponent of Net Neutrality, expanded broadband access for low-income families, broadband privacy, prison-phone justice, media diversity and more.

He “looks out for corporate interests” exclusively. Their lobbyists are “thrilled” about his appointment.

Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum have looked to the FCC to protect their rights to connect and communicate and cheered decisions like the historic Net Neutrality ruling, and Pai threatens to undo all of that important work.

Digital democracy is at risk with him as FCC chairman. Net Neutrality is a defining issue, preserving it vital.

It’s the last frontier of free and open communication space.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Online “Digital Democracy” at Risk: Trump’s FCC Chairman Threatens “Net Neutrality”

His access to America travel suspension targeting seven Muslim-majority countries was rejected at the district and appeals court levels.

Instead of cutting his losses and moving on, Reuters reported he’s “considering a new executive order,” possibly “exclud(ing) green card holders, or permanent residents (to) alleviate some concerns expressed by the courts,” according to an unnamed source.

His alternatives are to try getting the judicial rulings against him overturned by the full Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in an emergency hearing. Either choice may result in further defeat.

Specifics of a new order aren’t known, if it’s coming. One thing is clear. Trump isn’t backing down on wanting citizens and residents of targeted countries prevented from entering America – beginning with a temporary suspension, likely then making it permanent for the duration of his tenure.

According to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, “(e)very single court option is on the table, including an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision on the TRO (temporary restraining order) to the Supreme Court, including fighting out this case on the merits.”

And, in addition to that, we’re pursuing executive orders right now that we expect to be enacted soon that will further protect Americans from terrorism.

The best way to do it is by ending support for these groups, abandoning America’s imperial project, its endless wars on humanity at home and abroad.

The most obvious ways to defeat terrorism aren’t being considered – the pretext Washington needs to continue its quest for unchallenged global dominance, no matter the cost in human lives and misery.

Aboard Air Force One heading for his Florida second home, Trump said a “brand new order” could be issued early next week. It was being prepared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his travel ban.

“We will win that battle,” he said. “The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.”

During a Friday White House press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “(w)e will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt we’ll win that particular case.”

He also promised to “rapidly” introduce what he called “additional security” steps next week, without further elaboration.

Whatever revised restrictions he intends imposing on citizens and residents of designated Muslim-majority countries will again likely be challenged in court – continuing what looks like a protracted fight ahead.

Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Friday(conducted on February 7 and 8) showed 53% of respondents disapproved of his performance so far, 43% approving (compared to 35% two weeks ago) – 46% favoring impeachment.

PPP concluded saying “we continue to find that unhappiness with Trump – and with Congressional Republicans -could help Democrats to make big gains in 2018.”

America is a one-party state with two right wings, in lockstep on virtually all issues mattering most.

Disagreements when occuring are largely political, aiming to give one side an edge over the other. Privately, they’re united, serving privileged interests over most others.

America is a sham democracy, not the real thing. Elections are farcical. Voting changes nothing. Dirty business as usual always wins.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Isn’t Backing Down: New Muslim Travel Ban Order Coming

Perhaps the best answer is that Standing Rock is the killing of three birds with one stone. [1) Protection of BNSF profits, 2) Continued colonization of Indigenous Peoples, 3) An integral observation lab to study NVDA training impacts/results on non-Anglo cultures in recognition that NGOs are now rolling out NVDA training “programs” across the globe.

-from STANDING ROCK: PROFUSION, COLLUSION & BIG MONEY PROFITS [PART 1] by Cory Morningstar and Forrest Palmer

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:24)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

Standing Rock Sioux Nation, in what is called North Dakota has become the centre of what’s been dubbed an unprecedented convergence of tribal communities from across the continent and around the world.

Hundreds of tribes and thousands of people rallied behind this community in its fight to frustrate the development of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a fracked oil pipeline they claim will desecrate their sacred sites and threaten the quality of water in the Missouri River basin.

Joining the frey have been prominent Non Profit organizations, including the Rainforest Action Network, 350.org, and the Sierra Club. These groups and others helped publicize the action, utilizing websites, social media and e-petitions. Soon, the world would connect Standing Rock with fundraising concerts and celebrity visits.

Optimistic prospects as to the success of a strategy centred around prayer, ceremony and Non Violent Direct Action (NVDA) appear to have hit a wall. The US Army Corps of Engineers under the new Trump administration just granted the easement to allow the pipeline to pass under Lake Oahe.

This week’s Global Research News Hour attempts to take a fearless look at the Dakota Access Pipeline resistance, and what is at stake, not just for the people in the area, but for the future of authentic environmental and Indigenous struggles.

In the first half hour, we hear from two water protectors, who identify as Cedar Woman (Lorraine Clements) and Wopilawin (Paula Antoine, an organizer and veteran of a similar anti-Keystone XL action). They spoke from their vantage point on how the camp came together, the violent actions against campers by law enforcement and security personnel, mis-portrayal of the camp by media as ‘riotous’, and the importance of remaining united in the face of this common struggle.

Later on, retired Canadian biophysicist Dennis LeNeveu utilizes his own research and provides an assessment of the hazards stemming from the pipeline if it proceeds along the projected path.

Finally, London, Ontario based writer and researcher Cory Morningstar, returns to the program with a critical evaluation of the many non-profits, celebrities, and even corporations like Unilever, which have jumped on the Standing Rock bandwagon, to the detriment of the Tribal peoples and ecological causes those ‘allies’ purport to support. Following up on her research into the “non-profit industrial complex” (NPIC) Morningstar reveals the hidden and unwholesome motives of Warren Buffett, and other ‘philanthropists’, who finance anti-pipeline activism to the tune of millions of dollars through their foundations.

Even though there are, according to John Schertow of Intercontinental Cry, as many as 15 other pipeline developments in the U.S. alone threatening Indigenous lands, #NoDAPL has become the focus of attention in mainstream and alternative media. Morningstar notes that blocking the completion of one pipeline will not stop the ongoing genocide of tribal peoples in and around the Bakken. She also postulates that the NPIC- boosted profile of the Standing Rock protest may signal that efforts are underway to socially engineer grassroots Indigenous resistance, arguably the one grassroots movement left posing a serious challenge to imperialist plunder of the planet.

Cory Morningstar, a past guest of this program, is a native of London, Ontario. An independent journalist and researcher, she is published at Counterpunch, and Wrong Kind of Green, as well as her own site, theartofanniliation.com. Her six part series: STANDING ROCK: PROFUSION, COLLUSION & BIG MONEY PROFITS first appeared at Wrong Kind of Green in early December, 2016.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:24)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca 

Any other ally which depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel.

Late last month, Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front), al-Qaida’s Syrian arm, announced that it was severing ties with al-Qaida and renaming itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (the Front for the Conquest of Syria).

In a video, the group’s leader, Abu Mohamed al-Jolani, explained that the group’s association with al-Qaida permitted the outside powers intervening in the Syrian conflict to label it as an Islamic terrorist group.

The Guardian quoted al-Jolani as saying that the name change is intended “to remove the excuse used by the international community – spearheaded by America and Russia – to bombard and displace Muslims in the Levant: that they are targeting al-Nusra Front, which is associated with al-Qaida.”

Members of al Qaeda's Nusra Front carry their weapons as they sit in a trench near al-Zahra village, north of Aleppo city, November 25, 2014. (REUTERS/Hosam Katan)

Members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front carry their weapons as they sit in a trench
near al-Zahra village, north of Aleppo city, November 25, 2014.

He further explained that the new policy was an attempt to have the group removed from international terror lists and to allow it to be perceived as a more acceptable alternative to its main competitor, Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group known as ISIS or ISIL in the West).

Al-Nusra shares certain common goals with Daesh in seeking to overthrow the secular government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and replace it with a more traditional form of Islamic rule. It has also expressed hatred for the United States and other Western governments. Writing for the National Interest in November, geopolitical analyst Daniel R. DePetris explained:

Like its jihadist competitors in the Islamic State, al-Nusra is composed of highly motivated individuals and commanders who would like nothing more than to strike at the United States or at targets in Europe. Jabhat al-Nusra shares the same, minority-within-a-minority Salafi-Jihadist interpretation of Islam as ISIL, despises any and all sectarian groups outside of Syria’s majority Sunni community and has engaged in the same kind of atrocities that have made ISIL’s Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the most wanted international terrorist alive.

Though it has focused its attacks more directly on Syrian government forces and their symbolic and physical centers of power, it maintains a similar ruthlessness to that of Daesh. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch noted that both groups were “were responsible for systematic and widespread violations, including targeting civilians, kidnappings, and executions” in Syria. Daesh and al-Nusra both impose strict and discriminatory rules on women and girls, and have actively recruited child soldiers, according to the report.

Smokescreen or strategy?

In its recent rebranding, Al-Nusra also seems to be evaluating the political calculus of the Syrian civil war and acknowledging the recent gains by Syrian forces and their allies — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. With Assad strengthening his position and the rebel forces in disarray, al-Jolani may be making a bid to unify the opposition by projecting a less militant image to the outside world.

Still, it’s unclear what this apparent break with al-Qaida actually means. At the announcement of the group’s new name, al-Jolani was joined by a high level associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaida, creating the impression that the changes are more tactical than strategic.

Smadar Perry, an Israeli journalist known to have close ties to Israeli intelligence sources, even hinted that Israel’s Mossad urged this new path on al-Nusra. In an opinion piece posted by YNet on Monday, Perry wrote:

It may be that this separation is just a smokescreen, and that al-Julani will keep in touch with al-Qaeda in secret. It may also be that Jabhat al-Nusra have received an intelligence analysis from a very certain organization that told it to prepare for the day after Assad leaves power.

The White House has a hard time buying this turnover. They’re in a test period with us, said an official spokesperson, not dismissing outright the possibility of local fighters joining the American-led coalition against ISIS.

If they make a show of force in the field, and Jabhat al-Nusra’s dissociation leads to al-Qaeda’s further weakening in Afghanistan, and if Israel provides its supposed intelligence about al-Julani – Hezbollah and Assad swear he’s a Mossad agent – al-Nusra may become another piece of the puzzle that is the new Syria.

In the original Hebrew version of the same analysis, Perry noted the likelihood that Syria will be divided in “three or four cantons.” This has always been the goal for Tel Aviv, which sees Syria as one of the few remaining Arab states that can threaten its interests and security.

In Israel’s view, peace on its northern border would be guaranteed if Syria can be splintered into warring factions. It’s an approach championed at the onset of the civil war in 2012 by Daniel Pipes, a pro-Israel neocon who serves as president of Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank. Arguing that “the continuing Syrian conflict offers benefits to the West,” he explained:

As Sunni Islamists fight Shiite Islamists, both sides are weakened and their lethal rivalry lessens their capabilities to trouble the outside world. By inspiring restive minorities (Sunnis in Iran, Kurds and Shiites in Turkey), continued fighting in Syria could also weaken Islamist governments.

He further noted:

Nothing in the constitutions of Western states requires them to get involved in every foreign conflict; sitting this one out will prove to be a smart move. In addition to the moral benefit of not being accountable for horrors yet to come, staying away permits the West eventually to help its only true friends in Syria, the country’s liberals.

In a 2012 email released by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton offered an Iran-focused variant of this approach:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

The al-Nusra-Israel bond

Ultimately, Israel doesn’t care much about what happens in Syria as long as it can maintain a puppet protectorate along its Golan border. Israel began occupying and administering the region in the Six-Day War of 1967, and it officially annexing the Golan in 1981. Israel continues to refuse to return the territory to Syria despite near universal consensus that the occupation is illegal under international law. Further, the discovery of potential gas deposits there has coincided with a rise in Israeli settlement expansion in recent years.

Examining the al-Nusra-Israeli alliance in the region, it’s clear that the bonds between the two parties have been exceedingly close. Israel maintains a border camp for the families of Syrian fighters. Reporters have documented Israeli Defense Forces commandos entering Syrian territory to rendezvous with Syrian rebels. Others have photographed meetings between Israeli military personnel and al-Nusra commanders at the Quneitra Crossing, the ceasefire line that separates the Syrian-controlled territory and the Israeli-occupied territory in the Golan Heights.

A photo from the Israel, Syrian border along the Golan Heights showing IDF soldiers conversing with Jabhat al Nusra fighters.

A photo from the Israel, Syrian border along the Golan Heights
showing IDF soldiers conversing with Jabhat al Nusra fighters.

U.N. personnel also documented Syrian rebel vehicles picking up supplies from the Israeli side:

Quarterly UNDOF [United Nations Disengagement Observer Force] reports since the pullback reveal an ongoing pattern of Israeli coordination with those [al-Nusra] armed groups.

According to the December 2014 report, UNDOF observed two Israeli soldiers ‘opening the technical fence gate and letting two individuals pass from the [Syrian] to the [Israeli] side’ on 27 October. Unlike most fighters seen entering the Israeli side, these individuals were not wounded and the purpose of their visit remains a mystery.

UNDOF ‘sporadically observed armed members of the opposition interacting’ with the Israeli military across the ceasefire line, the report states.

The next UNDOF report, released in March, notes that UN forces witnessed Israeli soldiers delivering material aid to armed Syrian opposition groups.

These were presumably supplies and equipment designed either to help the rebels in their fight against Assad or to improve communications between Israeli and rebel forces.

Israel’s divide-and-conquer approach

Israel’s support for radical terror groups is a long-term strategy it’s exploited in multiple theaters. Its ultimate purpose is to weaken a strong foe.

In terms of Hezbollah, Israel hadn’t anticipated that the Lebanese militant group would grow to become a much more powerful and dangerous foe than the PLO had ever been in Lebanon.

Israeli soldiers walks near the border with Syria near the site of a Sunday Israeli airstrike, in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights, Monday, April 27, 2015

Israeli soldiers walks near the border with Syria near the site of a Sunday Israeli airstrike,
in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights, Monday, April 27, 2015

The strategy worked better regarding Hamas because it has never been able to dominate Fatah. The two have maintained a wary and draining battle of wills over the decades, with neither being able to oust the other. This has created a rift that has substantially weakened the Palestinians and their cause. Still, Hamas has trained its sights on Israel as well and become an even more militant foe than Fatah ever was.

Thus, Israel’s strategy of forging an alliance with al-Nusra and strengthening it so that it can wage a formidable fight against Assad, is part and parcel of a longstanding goal of dividing the enemy. Israel hopes the militant extremist group will dominate the Golan region and maintain stability and security there. However, Israel neglects what almost always happens to these golems: Once they are created they take on a life of their own. The creator loses control of his creation, which wreaks havoc and even turns against him.

Just as it happened to Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, and Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, so it happened with the U.S. alliance with the Afghan mujahadeen, and the Israeli alliances with their own Arab proxies.

Israel’s alliance with al-Nusra also points to the utter cynicism of its approach. While the rest of the world labels the group terrorists, and fights to prevent their terror attacks on Western soil, Israel looks only for its own advantage. There’s the old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but in Israel’s playbook, the saying goes: “The enemy of my friend may certainly be my friend.” This rings especially true when Israeli leaders warn the world about the threat of global jihad, while also cozying up to jihadis in their own corner of the world.

Netanyahu looks at Syrian patient IDF field hospital. (photo credit:KOBI GIDEON/GPO)

Benjamin Netanyahu looks at Syrian ‘patient’ being treated in an IDF field hospital. (photo credit:KOBI GIDEON/GPO)

The U.S. and European countries seem to either not notice or deliberately ignore Israel’s tactical embrace of the jihadi movement. The Obama administration is even preparing to ink a new record-breaking military spending agreement with Israel that will up U.S. aid from the current $3 billion a year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded $5 billion per year over the life of the 10-year deal, and the final amount will likely settle somewhere in the middle.

Only Israel gets away with such a level of cognitive dissonance in its alliance with the U.S. Any other ally which depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel. It forges its own path without regard for the interests of others, even its best friends.

Richard Silverstein is a MintPress analyst who has written the Tikun Olam blog since 2003, specializing in Israeli politics and US foreign affairs. He earned a BA from Columbia University, a BHL from the Jewish Theological Seminary, and MA in Comparative Literature from UCLA. Follow Richard on Twitter: @Richards1052 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Enemy of My Friend Is My Friend: Israel Accepts Billions from the US, but Maintains Ties with Al-Nusra

Tragédia de Santa Maria – 4 Anos sem Justiça

February 11th, 2017 by Edu Montesanti

“No momento que cheguei ao ginásio para o velório coletivo, eu gritava muito e os jornalistas rapidamente se aproximaram:vários colocaram o microfone em minha boca. Sentia como corvos na carniça. Eu gritava, ‘só quero meu filho!’. O tempo para mim parou ali, nem sei quanto tempo fiquei no CDM [Centro Desportivo Municipal]” (Ariane Floriano, mãe de vítima fatal da boate Kiss, com exclusividade a esta série de reportagens).
 “Quando estamos acampados no Ministério Público, ninguém da Imprensa vai… O Jornal Nacional [TV Globo] só fez sensacionalismo com os pais em frente aos caixões dos filhos! Quando estivemos agarrados ao caixão dos nossos filhos berrando, todos os jornalistas vieram como urubus!” (Carina Correa, mãe de vítima fatal da boate Kiss, com exclusividade a esta série de reportagens).

O incêndio da boate Kiss na cidade universitária de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, cumpriu quatro anos no dia 27 de janeiro de 2017 – sem justiça, o que não é nenhuma novidade em se tratando de Brasil apesar das aparências desenhadas pelo marketing midiático e judicial.
O segundo incêndio mais mortal da história do Brasil, mais grave dos últimos 54 anos, esteve longe de mero acidente como tentaram fazer crer. os aiatolás do mercadejo até de vidas humanas, e sua subserviente mídia comercial e acentuadamente sensacionalista, sustentada por esses mesmos mercadejantes.
Até agora, ninguém foi condenado no país onde uma desgraça passa por cima da outra sem solução e ainda, se não bastasse, acaba caindo no esquecimento da nação geral, condições estas peculiarmente incentivadas pela mídia e pelos poderes políticos. Macabra parceria de sucesso.
E para nenhum destes cenários, da impunidade à indiferença societária que leva ao esquecimento, há a menor perspectiva de mudança. Longe de possuir aptidões profético-espirituais, este autor realizou exaustiva entrevistas com todos os envolvidos na tragédia a serem registradas em uma serie de amplas reportagens (primeira publicação, nos próximos dias: A Noite Infame e os Dias Subsequentes).
Longe de possuir aptidões profético-espirituais, o autor desta série que inclui exaustiva entrevistas com todos os envolvidos na tragédia, há um ano da tragédia, em janeiro de 2014 alertou especialmente pais de vítimas para a realidade de hoje, esquecimento midiático mais absoluto, conforme será abordado no artigo Sinais e Imperativos da Tragédia – As Lições Nunca Aprendidas no Brasil.
O motivo do alerta deu-se quando a Rede Globo havia anunciado, nos bastidores da tragédia, o envio de seu “laranja” Sérgio Groisman a Santa Maria, segundo este autor a fim de abafar intensas criticas da cidade e alegrar corações de vítimas e familiares de vítimas através do que deveria ser um mini-festival de auditório mal-disfarçado e devidamente dramatizado.O sensacionalismo seguido de esquecimento do incêndio por parte da emissora ao longo de um ano, práticas historicamente bem conhecidas de todo o País, foram esquecidos naquele momento “nobre” de visita global a Santa maria, a indignação de então acabou anestesiada através do brinde psicológico que incluiu minutinhos de fama a determinados personagens da sociedade santamariense, hoje novamente indignada com o esquecimento midiático.

Segundo o alerta, seria muito mais produtivo e chamaria muito mais a atenção do País para a luta local por justiça organizar-se protesto contra a Rede Globo, com recusa a participar de qualquer evento organizado pela emissora (tão criticada até então pelos próprios envolvidos na tragédia), neste caso através de seu animador de auditório que, conforme antecipado por este autor, não trataria dos temas cruciais que levaram ao incêndio, nem à impunidade e abandono do Poder Público em relação aos familiares de vítimas e sobreviventes. Este repórter foi categórico:

Ninguém deu ouvidos e estenderam, deslumbrados, o tapete vermelho à Toda-Poderosa Rede Globo ao mesmo tempo que davam menos importância aos solitários comunicadores que, desde o início, compravam suas lutas: pois a cruel realidade estende-se, ao longo destes anos, ao que está ai hoje: a realidade do impiedoso Império midiático enriquecido (também sobre a desgraça alheia); realidade das vítimas sem memória, sem verdade e sem justiça incluindo as centenas de sobreviventes desamparadas, com sequelas para o resto da vida.

Não apenas a luta por memória, verdade e justiça poderia ser bem mais efetiva através de negação a participar de programa da Rede Globo seguida de protestos, como seria enobrecida sobretudo (e isso também foi apontado pelo autor a pais de vítimas) a memória de seus filhos. E hoje a amargura pelo esquecimento midiático não carregaria consigo o inevitável brinde, tão anunciado e desprezado: ter-se curvado (eufemismo para acovardado) diante da porta-voz da impunidade na defesa dos interesses dos criminosos detentores do poder, político e econômico.Tal fato, tal estado de espírito bastante peculiar no Brasil apático, da falta de memória, do jeitinho e da vantagem em tudo responde, perfeitamente, a indagação dos próprios envolvidos na tragédia de Santa Maria: por que em relação ao incêndio de boate na capital argentina de Buenos Aires em 2004, muito semelhante ao caso da Kiss, os culpados acabaram punidos e o então prefeito, com direitos políticos cassados.

A Tragédia

Por volta das 3h18 do dia 27 de janeiro de 2013, um dos integrantes da banda Gurizada Fandangueira lançou fogo de artifício inadequado na boate Kiss (supostos músicos, medíocres produtores de lixo cultural, irresponsáveis e gananciosos, haviam comprado naquele mesmo dia o artefato mais barato), dando início ao incêndio no teto que ficava a menos de três metros do palco de onde foi lançado o fogo de artifício: de três a cinco minutos morreram 242 jovens intoxicados por gás cianeto no interior de uma casa noturna que não possuía nenhuma estrutura. Mais de 600 ficaram feridos (quase o número permitido por lei para lotação do estabelecimento), muitos com sequelas que os acompanharão pelo resto da vida.

Havia na Kiss apenas uma porta disponível, tanto de entrada quanto de saída ao público. para piorar as condições de segurança, os extintores de incêndio encontravam-se fora de lugar, vazios e já utilizados (em brincadeiras nas atividades da casa que incluía os proprietários da boate) em um estabelecimento comercial que jamais reuniu, ao longo dos mais de quatro anos em que funcionou, todos os alvarás requeridos para funcionamento.Além disso tudo, naquela fatídica noite de 27 de janeiro de 2013 cerca de 1.200 pessoas se espremiam em um local que não podia comportar mais que 691 pessoas. A estrutura da Kiss será analisada em detalhes através de duas amplas reportagens nos próximos dias, que ouvem a todos os lados em questão assim como em todas as publicações da série.

Outras nove pessoas iriam a óbito nas semanas subsequentes também por intoxicação por cianeto, segundo versão oficial confirmada por documentos enviados pela Polícia e testemunha de toxicologista que atendeu vítimas em Porto Alegre, totalizando 242 mortes que revelaram, na acolhedora cidade santamariense, um velho filme à brasileira: a fiscalização corrupta no país do jeitinho, que envolve administradores públicos e empresários inescrupulosos, fruto também de um sistema capitalista falido.Todas as 242 mortes, segundo laudos enviados com exclusividade pela Polícia Civil da cidade, ocorreram por intoxicação com gás cianeto (o mesmo usado pelos nazistas na II Guerra Mundial, para exterminar inimigos em campos de concentração), devido à queima da espuma de poliuretanto no teto da boate, o qual nao poderia estar ali por ser altamente inflamável, e mais: não há no Brasil antídoto para intoxicação com tal gás, o que desautoriza, ou deveria desautorizar, o comércio da espuma usada na grande maioria das casas noturnas do Brasil ainda nos dias de hoje.

Os documentos enviados pela Polícia confirmando a morte por cianeto, somados às declarações de uma especialista que atendeu vítimas da boate, jogam por terra alegações do advogado de defesa da Kiss trazidas a esta reportagem.

Tal fato tem sido incansavelmente questionado pelo dr. Luiz Fernando Smaniotto, advogado da Associação dos Familiares e Sobreviventes da Tragédia de Santa Maria (AVTSM). Para responder a isso, foram procuradas autarquias federais, a Anvisa (vigilância sanitária) e o Inmetro (qualidade e liberação de produtos para comércio): ambos se eximiram das responsabilidades.

A Cantegril, localizada na Grande Porto Alegre, fabricante da espuma contida na Kiss, foi igualmente procurada: falaram com esta reportagem o químico responsável, o qual entrou em gritantes contradições, e o jurista da empresa. Após a conversa com ambos, a Polícia Civil de Santa Maria enviou à reportagem documentos que comprovam a (ir)responsabilidade da empresa em questão que, segundo familiares de vítimas, seu advogado, dr. Smaniotto e a própria Polícia Civil, leva em consideração apenas fatores comerciais – a desgraçada lógica do capitalismo, que é ilógica e transforma vidas humanas em meros números, acessórios da maximização do lucro desenfreada de bandidos travestidos de seres responsáveis, éticos e geradores da riqueza nacional, ou até mesmo intelectuais com seus imorais jargões mercadológicos e/ou jurídicos.Nas primeiras horas pós-tragédia, a mídia nacional tratou do incêndio de maneira absolutamente sensacionalista – fato apontado com unanimidade por familiares de vítimas procurados pela presente reportagem, e por todos os outros envolvidos na tragédia -, para logo se esquecer do caso, e nos momentos mais importantes que foram a investigação policial, o descaso da Justiça brasileira e as manifestações públicas de familiares de vítimas, em Santa Maria e na capital gaúcha de Porto Alegre.

Por Memória, Verdade e Justiça

Para esta série por memória, verdade e justiça, foram entrevistados por mais de 150 horas todos os envolvidos na tragédia (entre revelações, denúncias, mentiras logo comprovadas e deslizes além de documentos enviados com exclusividade, por pais de vítimas, pela Polícia de Santa Maria, pela Prefeitura e pelo Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria, que recebeu vítimas):Familiares das vítimas e seu advogado; sobreviventes da tragédia, incluindo seguranças da boate Kiss; o então prefeito de Santa Maria; a então secretária de Finanças, a superintendente de Assistência Social da cidade à época; a Polícia Civil santamariense, que investiga a tragédia; Hospital Universitário; a Brigada Militar; Ministério da Saúde; Anvisa; Inmetro; químico e jurista da fabricante da espuma contida na boate (liberadora de cianeto ao ser queimada); advogado de um dos proprietários da Kiss; toxicologista que atuou no socorro a vítimas; e juristas de fora do caso, a fim de prestar orientação jurídica a esta série de publicações inéditas.

A série também traz duras perguntas de pai de vítima encaminhadas, diretamente através desta reportagem, ao advogado, dr. Jader Marques, que atua na defesa de um dos sócios da boate da morte (como é amplamente chamada em Santa Maria hoje, especialmente por familiares de vítimas), Elissandro Spohr. O dr. Marques respondeu às contundentes e indignadas questões sem rodeios, embora tenha trazido algumas afirmações consideradas infelizes por esta reportagem, a qual o rebateu e acredita ter contribuído para a construção da cidadania, do senso de justiça e suprido a ausência de espaço para que os sofridos familiares de vítimas ecoem sua voz. Diante disso, o dr. Marques fez silêncio definitivo.

Enquanto a reportagem esteve em meio ao fogo cruzado entre todos os lados envolvidos na tragédia, uma instituição recusou-se, de modo vexatório, a conceder entrevista, exatamente aquela acusada de crime doloso pela Polícia, uma das que tanta revolta gera nos familiares de vítimas e, mais uma desgraçada ironia à brasileira, uma das poucas que ainda têm credibilidade no país: o Corpo de Bombeiros de Santa Maria.

No primeiro contato, o comandante Marcelo Maya assegurou, relutante, que a entrevista seria concedida – mas por correio eletrônico, ideia inicialmente rechaçada por esta reportagem pois tal prática fere os princípios jornalísticos. A alegação do comandante é que a Imprensa está denegrindo a imagem de sua corporação: perguntado como a mídia faz isso, após breve silêncio o comandante de uma corporação criminosa da cidade santamariense resumiu-se a uma longa, fechada e forçada risada, sem responder, e dando prazo de uma semana para responder às perguntas que seriam enviadas por esta reportagem. Já no mesmo dia, elas foram enviadas, e as respostas nunca viriam.

Procurado por telefone, Maya não atendeu. Em seguida, mais um (duro) correio eletrônico enviado ao comandante dos Bombeiros e, simultaneamente e em aberto, a diversas instituições, políticos, órgãos de Imprensa, Prefeitura de Santa Maria e envolvidos com a tragédia (pais de vítimas, profissionais de saúde e advogados) em protesto por seu silêncio, cobrando resposta sobretudo aos familiares das vítimas. Tal mensagem denunciava também todos os crimes dos Bombeiros evidenciados pelo inequérito policial, e por sobreviventes da boate Kiss. Mas o comandante manteve a regra, para com esta reportagem e nas mais diversas situações desde 27 de janeiro de 2013: silêncio absoluto, definitivamente.

O Corpo de Bombeiros (órgão estadual) recebeu, até o dia da tragédia, milhões de reais da Prefeitura em caráter assistencial, montante sem precedentes, fato confirmado por documentos enviados pelo prefeito de Santa Maria, com exclusividade a esta reportagem. Com o incêndio, a insuficiência do efetivo militar e de materiais de resgate trouxe uma questão inevitável: para onde tinha ido todo aquela soma financeira? Seria comprovado mais um caso vergonhoso de corrupção no país do imponderável. E se não bastasse, o “trabalho” dos bombeiros em frente à Kiss foi mais um gesto criminosamente covarde, conforme abordado em A Noite Infame e os Dias Subsequentes.

A Prefeitura de Santa Maria, durante as mais de 15 horas de tão atenciosa entrevista exclusiva com envio de diversos documentos a serem publicados ao longo desta série, insistiu que não houve falha e nem muito menos negligência por parte de seus fiscais nos anos de inspeção na boate da morte, contrariando os dois inquéritos policiais – o primeiro, de março de 2013, indicava no mínimo falhas muito claras, e o segundo a fim de concluir fatos faltantes daquele, em julho de 2014, apontou casos de corrupção envolvendo agentes municipais. As versões de todos os lados, com os devidos documentos, serão devidamente expostos nesta série, a fim de esmiuçar uma das maiores tragédias dos últimos tempos no Brasil.

Vale destacar que o então prefeito Cezar Schirmer, PMDB, quem tem sido vítima de distorção dos fatos e de muita injustiça em diversos aspectos, tem se recusado a conceder entrevistas sobre a tragédia, abrindo exceção a esta reportagem desde o início que foi procurado, e de modo altamente gentil e democrático. Porém, diversas de suas alegações têm sido consideradas distorções pelo advogado de familiares das vítimas, e gerado profunda revolta na cidade. Mas também tem servido para que o prefeito eleito e reeleito, em grande parte tido como altamente eficiente até o dia do incêndio inclusive por familiares de vítimas, seja vítima do mais baixo jogo político dentro e fora de Santa Maria. Fato este que não isenta sua administração das culpas trazidas pelas evidências, confirmadas pelo inquérito policial.

O ex-prefeito Schirmer acaba isolado nas acusações por parte de certos setores da sociedade, servindo mais como bode expiatório que como administrador a ser (justamente) investigado )o que ocorreu por parte da Polícia Civil, mas não pelo Ministério Público) o que se configura mais um empecilho para a promoção da justiça no Brasil. Uma das exceções a isto, segundo apurou profundamente esta reportagem e se tornará bastante claro na série que se inicia aqui, é a Polícia Civil da cidade, com transparente e incansável trabalho.

O então prefeito Schirmer, que também é advogado e hoje atua como secretário de Segurança do Rio Grande do Sul, sem acusar de maneira detalhada a ninguém, lamenta que outros envolvidos não sejam tão cobrados quanto ele – dando como exemplo Bombeiros, governo federal e donos da boate. Pois nesta séria, a reportagem desfaz, logo na primeira publicação e de maneira documental, a mentira que, segundo o prefeito santamariense, foi “politicagem” cuja informação “caiu do céu na cidade” e gerou muita controvérsia, acirrando os ânimos e afastando a sociedade da verdade dos fatos.

Já o advogado, dr. Jader Marques, acusa duramente e sem rodeios nas várias horas de entrevista também exclusiva a esta reportagem, o Ministério Público, o governo federal e a Prefeitura de Santa Maria à época pela liberação do funcionamento da casa noturna de seu cliente o qual, segundo o dr. Marques, não é especialista em assunto técnicos envolvendo engenharia, arquitetura e prevenção de incêndio. Portanto, Spohr não pode ser responsabilizado, é o mote da defesa de um dos donos da Kiss.

O advogado de defesa de Spohr, intensamente criticado pelos familiares de vítimas, também acusou a Polícia santamariense de politiqueira, a qual o respondeu de maneira sóbria e bastante dura, através de fatos pontuais. Assim, mentiras e deslizes envolvendo alguns argumentos do dr. Marques, que por tanto tempo e de maneira tão gentil atendeu a esta reportagem, como praticamente todos os lados em questão, são trazidos também às claras diretamente pelos envolvidos, alguns deles de maneira igualmente documental.

A velha e envelhecida mídia brasileira não poderia ficar de fora da profunda revolta por parte de familiares de vítimas conforme abordado no inicio, e das abordagens desta série Por Memória Verdade e Justiça, enquanto porta-voz e ferramenta de blindagem dos podres poderes políticos e empresarias: esta série analisa como a mesquinha mídia politiqueira vendeu mais um produto desgraça à sociedade brasileira, em concordância com pais de vítimas procurados, que relatam a ganância e todos os gestos inescrupulosos da grande mídia tupiniquim já no velório de seus filhos, sem respeitar minimamente a dor de quem ficou, no momento mais duro de suas vidas. “No momento que cheguei ao ginásio para o velório coletivo, eu gritava muito e os jornalistas rapidamente se aproximaram:vários colocaram o microfone em minha boca. Sentia como corvos na carniça. Eu gritava, ‘só quero meu filho!’. O tempo para mim parou ali, nem sei quanto tempo fiquei no CDM [Centro Desportivo Municipal]”, afirma com exclusividade a esta série uma mãe de vítima, logo na primeira reportagem. Outra mãe procurada por esta reportagem aponta no mesmo sentido, profundamente revoltada: “Quando estamos acampados no Ministério Público, ninguém da Imprensa vai… O Jornal Nacional só fez sensacionalismo com os pais em frente aos caixões dos filhos! Quando estivemos agarrados ao caixão dos nossos filhos berrando, todos os jornalistas vieram como urubus!”.

Pois a mídia autoproclamada “alternativa”, em alguns casos nada mais que a outra face de uma mesma moeda midiático-politiqueira, sensacionalista, sem memória e sumária acusadora de seus inimigos políticos e econômicos, também se esqueceu rapidamente da tragédia para nunca mais tocar no assunto, nem jamais exercer o mínimo ofício jornalístico que implica investigação. Não havia gente do chamado povão na “boate da morte”, mas havia mais mil universitários que possuem a mesma origem da imensa maioria dos profissionais da Imprensa “alternativa”. E como a tragédia de Santa Maria envolveu a sistêmica corrupção envolvendo fiscalização Brasil afora, especialmente em casas noturnas que são frequentadas por todas as classes sociais, é um assunto que diz respeito a cada um de nós, seja de que segmento pertençamos. Todos deveríamos nos interessas pelo massacre de Santa Maria, e a mídia não poderia, jamais, ter se esquecido dela.

Conforme insistem familiares das vítimas, outros incêndios criminosos como o da boate Kiss devem se repetir no Brasil das lições nunca aprendidas (em 29 de novembro de 2013, aliás, algo semelhante ocorreu no Memorial da América Latina em São Paulo, com as mesmas implicações do genocídio da Kiss no que diz respeito à imprudência na liberação de alvarás, e ausência de antídoto para intoxicação por cianeto).

O incêndio da boate Kiss foi uma das mais crueis evidências do falido sistema fiscalizador Brasil afora, e da ganância empresarial brasileira, ambos emaranhados em corrupção. Um sistema mafioso que rege as relações políticas, econômicas e sociais do Estado de direito brasileiro altamente frágil.

Aqui não há esquecimento da tragédia em Santa Maria porque justiça só é possível através da verdade, e verdade só pode ser apurada se houver memória. Como diria o jurista argentino Nicolás Avellaneda (1837-85), povo que esquece seu passado, está condenado a vivê-lo novamente.

Edu Montesanti

Within just a few weeks, two studies were published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports that cast new doubts on the safety of genetically modified foods and glyphosate herbicide. The first found that a genetically modified corn, NK 603, was not substantially equivalent to a non-GMO counterpart, which is contrary to claims of GMO proponents. The second study found that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, can cause a serious liver disease at doses thousands of times lower than that allowed by law.

Dr. Michael Antoniou, Head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London in the United Kingdom, led the ground-breaking research.

Dr. Michael Antoniou

The main focus of research within Dr. Antoniou’s group is the study of the molecular mechanisms of the regulation of gene function. He has used these discoveries to develop efficient gene expression systems for efficacious and safe biotechnological applications, including gene therapy.

More recently, Dr. Antoniou has expanded his research program to include using molecular profiling “omics” methods in evaluating the safety of foods derived from GMO crops, low dose exposure from their associated pesticides, and other chemical pollutants.

Dr. Antoniou is also a co-author of GMO Myths and Truths, an evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety of genetically modified crops and foods.

I recently interviewed Dr. Antoniou about his newly published studies.

Please summarize the findings of your study showing that the GMO corn NK 603 was not substantially equivalent to a non-GMO corn.

Dr. Michael Antoniou: We used a modern in-depth compositional analysis to test the claim that a genetically engineered corn variety, NK603, was substantially equivalent to an isogenic non-GMO counterpart.

The establishment of substantial equivalence is a foundation for safety evaluation of GMO crops. In the United States and in other countries, the crops that have been commercialized are claimed to be substantially equivalent to non-GMO equivalents, and therefore safe.

But the kind of compositional analyses done thus far to see if a GMO crop is substantially equivalent is a crude nutritional analysis of total protein, fats, and vitamins.

If you use cutting-edge molecular profiling methods as we did, they will provide a spectrum of different types of proteins and small molecule metabolites. It’s a very in-depth analysis.

Does the claim of substantial equivalence stand up to this fine compositional analysis? No, it doesn’t. Our analysis found over 150 different proteins whose levels were different between the GMO NK603 and its non-GMO counterpart. More than 50 small molecule metabolites were also significantly different in their amounts.

What do these differences indicate?

Dr. Antoniou: They indicate that there were changes in the protein profile that were reflective of an imbalance in energy metabolism and oxidative stress. In terms of metabolite changes, the most pronounced were increased levels of two polyamines. These polyamines, putrescine and especially cadaverine, can be toxic in certain contexts when consumed in large amounts.

The bottom line of the paper is that once you do a compositional analysis properly, the GMO corn doesn’t stand up to claims of substantial equivalence. This questions the validity of a key step in the GM corn’s approval process.

A more detailed safety evaluation should have been conducted for this corn.

What about the criticisms from supporters of GMO crops?

Dr. Antoniou: There have been vociferous attacks, and we have dealt with them in a rational, evidence-based way. We have posted four extensive rebuttals.

For example, critics said we had to compare the GMO corn with many other non-GMO varieties to see the range of “natural variation.” But comparing with more varieties has the effect of hiding the differences—the exact opposite of what we were trying to do.

Our aim was to analyze to see any effect of the GM transformation process, so the only scientifically valid comparator is the nearest possible isogenic non-GMO counterpart. When you do that, you find differences.

Tell me about the Roundup/glyphosate study.

Dr. Antoniou: For the very first time we have established a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of daily ingestion of Roundup and a serious disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

We used cutting edge compositional analytical methods to determine the health status of rats’ livers. Protein and metabolite profiles are a direct measure of the composition of organs and give a direct readout of the health or disease status of organs. We found that these organs weren’t healthy. There were clear hallmarks of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which correlated with previous observations of an increased incidence of tissue necrosis or liver tissue replaced with scars.

We were able to make a direct statement that Roundup caused disease.

Roundup is a hitherto unknown and unsuspected potential risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease that calls for further investigation. Twenty-five percent of the U.S. population suffers from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Risk factors include obesity, diabetes, and high blood fat levels. But there are risk factors for the disease that have not yet been identified, and it’s possible that exposure to Roundup could be one such missing risk factor.

What are key takeaways of the study?

Dr. Antoniou: First, the rats consumed a glyphosate-equivalent level of Roundup that is 75,000 times lower than what is permitted in Europe and 437,500 times lower than that allowed in the U.S. Our study results suggest that the permitted safety intake level of glyphosate-based herbicides needs to be revisited as they may have been set way too high.

The second point that this is a new risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and needs to be taken into account by the medical establishment.

What are your thoughts about genetic engineering of foods?

Dr. Antoniou: I’ve maintained all along that when you take a look at the GMO transformation process—whether inserting genes or using newer methods, such as gene editing—and place these methods in the context of new genetics, which tells us that no gene or its protein product works in isolation, then you can expect problems from these genetic engineering procedures. Genes and their protein products work together in a highly complex, interactive, and integrated network. From the holistic perspective of gene organization, control, and function, the GMO transformation process is technically and conceptually flawed. It’s inevitable that there will be problems; it’s just a matter of degree. This is what basic science tells us.

And when GMOs are added to their associated pesticide residues, as a package, they become a potentially very harmful product.

Technologies like genetic engineering in agriculture must be re-evaluated for safety as the science shifts. If, as we do this, we find that it is not a predictable and safe technology, we need to have the courage to say “no” and look at different ways to achieve our goals because what we are doing is clearly disruptive.

Here are links to the studies published by Dr. Antoniou and his team:

Roundup – liver toxicity: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328 (Open Access)

NK603 GM corn analysis: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855 (Open access)

Here are rebuttals to criticisms of the NK603 GMO corn study:

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855#comments (2 postings in response to others’ comments)

http://www.feednavigator.com/Sectors/Swine/Design-of-GMO-corn-equivalence-study-flawed-US-animal-scientist (see comments thread

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vug3coCSYqTOcChYHUqR2C4h8GROkm1PmLQFebHD5JA/edit

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Risks of GMO Food, Glyphosate Uncovered: Scientist’s Ground-Breaking Research

US President Trump has gone out of his way to provide a gushing welcome to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who began a two-day state visit to the US yesterday with discussions between the two men and a joint press conference. While both leaders were effusive about the relationship between Japan and the US, the tensions and uncertainties remain.

Abe—the first world leader to meet Trump in November after his election win—was seeking reassurances over Japan’s longstanding military alliance with the United States, as well over economic ties between the two countries. In the course of his election campaign, Trump questioned the US alliances with Japan and South Korea and accused both of unfair trade practices.

Yesterday, however, Trump hugged Abe, saying later that was “because we have a very, very good bond. Very, very good chemistry. I’ll let you know if it changes but I don’t think it will.” During Abe’s visit, the two men are due to dine with each other four times, fly together on Air Force One and play a round of golf at the president’s resort in South Florida.

At their press conference, Trump declared:

“The bonds between our two nations and the friendship between our two peoples is very, very deep. This administration is committed to bringing these ties even closer.”

A joint statement reaffirmed the US-Japan Security Treaty, including its coverage of the disputed Senkaku islets, known as Diaoyu in China, in the East China Sea. It declared that the two countries “oppose any unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.” It added that the US was “fully committed to defending its homeland, forces, and allies, through the full range of U.S. military capabilities”—in other words, including nuclear weapons.

US Defence Secretary James Mattis visited South Korea and Japan last week to offer similar reassurances and to strengthen military ties with the two Asian countries.

The lavish praise for the Japanese prime minister and his sumptuous treatment will fool no-one, however, least of all Abe. Given that Trump has elevated “unpredictability” to a principle of foreign policy, a question mark remains over the US-Japan alliance and the threat continues of punitive US trade measures against Japan.

Trump has already dealt a significant blow to Japan by withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This was also a blow to Abe personally. He had expressed great hopes that the TPP would revive the Japanese economy and pushed its ratification through the Japanese Diet.

Speaking in Washington, Abe defended that TTP and also took a shot at Trump’s “America First” demagogy about “unfair trade” and loss of American jobs. He told US business leaders that “a whopping majority” of the Japanese cars running on American roads were manufactured in the US. That included 70 percent of Toyotas, a company that Trump had singled out for criticism in the past. Abe said Japanese corporations provided more than 800,000 jobs in the United States.

Trump, however, has targeted Japan because of its huge trade surplus with the United States, second only to China last year. Having accused both Japan and China of currency manipulation, he declared yesterday that the currencies of all three countries would soon be on a level playing field. “That’s the only way it’s fair. That’s the only way you can fairly compete in trade and other things,” he said.

If Trump has pushed economic disputes with Japan into the background and reaffirmed the US-Japan Security Treaty, it is a tactical move aimed at strengthening Washington as it prepares to confront Beijing.

Just prior to Abe’s arrival in Washington, Trump held a lengthy phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which, according to the official White House readout, was “extremely cordial, and both leaders extended best wishes to the people of each other’s countries.”

In particular, Trump told Xi that he would “honour” the “One China” policy, which forms the bedrock of US-China relations and under which Washington recognises Beijing as the sole legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.

Much has been made in media commentary of Trump’s “concession” to China, but without a formal acknowledgement at least of the One China policy, the already strained relations between the two countries would have deteriorated rapidly.

Trump had already provoked an angry reaction from Beijing by taking a phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen following his election victory—the first between leaders of the two countries since 1979.

Speaking to Fox News in December, Trump openly declared: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China policy’ unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.” Trump went on to identify areas where he expected China to make major concessions.

“I mean, look,” he said, “we’re being hurt very badly by China with devaluation; with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don’t tax them; with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn’t be doing; and frankly, with not helping at all with North Korea.”

Trump has not altered his attitude toward the One China policy, any more than he has changed his mind about demanding that Japan pay more for its military alliance with the United States. As far as Trump is concerned, the One China policy, like the threat of trade war measures, is just a bargaining chip for extracting major concessions from the Beijing regime.

During his press conference with Abe, Trump absurdly declared: “I believe that will all work out very well for everybody, China, Japan, the United States and everybody in the region.” In reality, the US president has set course for a confrontation with China, unless it makes one concession after another, all down the line.

Tensions between China and the US are already sharp as demonstrated by a close encounter on Wednesday between a US P-3C Orion military reconnaissance plane and a Chinese early-warning aircraft in the South China Sea. The Pentagon blamed China for what it branded the “unsafe” encounter.

Whether by accident or design, such incidents can become the trigger for a military clash and conflict. Trump’s aggressive stance toward China, following on from the Obama administration’s confrontational “pivot to Asia” and military build-up throughout the region, only heightens that danger.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Lavish Welcome for Japan’s Prime Minister. US-Japan Security Treaty Directed against China

Donald Trump’s first concrete decision as commander in chief was a major fiasco that killed nine children, eight women, and a U.S. soldier in a botched raid on al Qaeda in Yemen.

The operation — which Trump reportedly approved over dinner — also failed to catch its reported target and severely damaged a local clinic, mosque, and school.

It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump making the situation worse in Yemen, but he did.

A Yemeni man walks past flames rising from the ruins of buildings destroyed in a Saudi-led airstrike on Feb. 10, 2016 in Sanaa.

Impoverished to begin with, Yemen is two years into a civil war that has killed 10,000 people and displaced millions. A U.S.-supplied bombing campaign has turned schoolshospitalsessential infrastructure, and ancient heritage sites into rubble. And a U.S.-backed blockade is preventing the trade of food and basic goods, starving a country that previously relied on imports for 90 percent of its food.

Armed Yemenis walk on the debris at a wedding hall which was reportedly hit by a Saudi-led coalition air strike in the capital Sanaa, on July 10, 2015, a few hours before a humanitarian pause was to take effect. The humanitarian pause in the war in Yemen will be "useless" because rebels and their allies have shown no readiness to abide by it, a Saudi official said. AFP PHOTO / MOHAMMED HUWAIS        (Photo credit should read MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images)
Armed Yemenis walk on the debris at a wedding hall reportedly hit by a Saudi-led coalition air strike in the capital Sanaa on July 10, 2015. Photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images

As a result, the United Nations this week declared that Yemen is on the brink of famine. Officials held a news conference Wednesday to announce that 19 million Yemenis — more than two-thirds of the country’s population — need some form of humanitarian assistance, 7.3 million people do not know where their next meal will come, and more than half of the country’s medical facilities have closed.

Jan Egeland, a former UN official and chair of the Norwegian Refugee Council, described the situation by saying “if bombs don’t kill you, a slow and painful death by starvation is now an increasing threat.”

Even so, the toll of Trump’s botched raid was so high that it drew criticism from the ousted government-in-exile of Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi — the party supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in Yemen’s civil war. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Hadi’s ministers had withdrawn their support for the U.S. to conduct ground missions in Yemen. The Pentagon and the Hadi government quickly denied the report, but Hadi’s foreign minister then said the government is conducting a “reassessment” of the raid.

Trump is evidently so sensitive to the criticism that he has tried to smother it by shamefully smearing critics and trying to stifle dissent.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused critics of being disrespectful of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL Trump sent to his death. “I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and does a disservice to the life of Chief Owens,” Spicer said.

On Thursday, after Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., described the raid as “a failure,” Trump — who repeatedly insisted it was a success — lashed out on Twitter, saying McCain’s criticism “emboldens the enemy” — likening congressional truth-telling to sedition.

And signs are that Yemen is in for more suffering at Trump’s hands. Trump’s Defense Department is reportedly considering a proposal to designate Yemen a formal battlefield in the war on terror, which would allow for an “intensified pace of operations, rather than one-off raids or drone strikes.”

Yemen is one of seven countries included in Trump’s immigration ban. In New York City, Yemeni-Americans have led strikes and large protests against the ban, which separates many from their extended families.

And the Washington Times reported on Wednesday that the administration is set to approve an arms transfer to Saudi Arabia that the Obama administration denied to them on human rights grounds.

The shipment contains hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons guidance systems that would allow Saudi Arabia to convert dumb bombs into precision missiles.

Saudi soldiers from an artillery unit stand behind a pile of ammunition at a position close to the Saudi-Yemeni border, in southwestern Saudi Arabia, on April 13, 2015. Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition of several Arab countries which since March 26 has carried out air strikes against the Shiite Huthis rebels, who overran the capital Sanaa in September and have expanded to other parts of Yemen. AFP PHOTO / FAYEZ NURELDINE        (Photo credit should read FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/Getty Images)
Saudi soldiers from an artillery unit stand behind a pile of ammunition at a position close to the Saudi-Yemeni border,
in southwestern Saudi Arabia, on April 13, 2015. 

Photo: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images

Targeted bombing is normally safer for civilians than indiscriminate bombing. In fact, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during his confirmation hearing that the U.S. should provide Saudi Arabia with “better targeting intelligence” and “better targeting capability” in order to minimize “collateral damage.”

But the Obama administration, despite its reluctance to offend the Saudis, halted the guidance-systems sales after concluding that the Saudi-led coalition was targeting civilians deliberately.

Saudi Arabia began bombing Yemen in March 2015 after Houthi rebels overran the capital and deposed Hadi, the Saudi-backed leader, who now splits his time between the Saudi capital and southern Yemen.  The U.S. has been a silent partner in the kingdom’s campaign against the Houthis, refueling warplanes, supplying targeting intelligence, and resupplying the coalition with more than $20 billion in weapons.

Since the beginning of their campaign, Saudi Arabia has destroyed vital civilian infrastructure including farmsfisherieswater infrastructureroads, and hospitals. Other targeting decisions have sparked global outrage: the bombing of a children’s school and a school for the blind, and the October attack that turned a funeral at a community center into a “lake of blood.”

Congress has not yet been notified of the weapons shipment, and the Pentagon declined to comment on it.

The Saudi-led bombing campaign has also allowed al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate — the target of Trump’s botched raid — to grow exponentially in personnel and finances. According to State Department reports, the group quadrupled in size the year that Saudi Arabia started bombing. The same year, al Qaeda seized a prominent port city, which netted them an estimated $5 million a day off customs tariffs and smuggled goods. Al Qaeda in Yemen is also fighting the Houthis.

While Trump ramps up U.S. militarism in Yemen, Democrats have largely ignored the plight of the Yemenis. When a Yemeni refugee who had lost her father to Saudi bombing questioned Nancy Pelosi at a CNN town hall on January 31, Pelosi condemned Trump’s Muslim travel ban — but said nothing about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war. “Your family is suffering because our president is reckless” she said.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Intends to Follow Up Botched Yemen Military Raid By Helping Saudis Target Civilians
In Dons of Time, Tonio Wolfe travels back in time to Bloody Sunday and the Matchgirls Strike

During the Sedona vortex expedition he had seen her a second time. Of the infinite choices available to him in that moment he had found her in the midst of a crisis. Could it be an accident? What did it really mean? At least it was possible to isolate the moment — November 13, the climax of a series of demonstrations that had been building for months.

The dispossessed of London had begun to protest unemployment. The term was new, just coined. The police response was predictably harsh, often resulting in injuries and arrests. Even the press wasn’t safe.

For those in charge the problem was mainly tactical, a question of how to maintain public order. That meant stopping the protests in Trafalgar Square. Demonstrations had become an almost daily occurrence there. It was the most convenient place in the city for an outdoor gathering, and a central refuge for the homeless. Hundreds of men and women slept in its nooks and crannies, joined in daylight by thousands more, the ragged denizens of the city’s notorious East End.

Annie Besant

Trafalgar was also near Westminster and Buckingham Palace. As a result Lord Salisbury, who often saw threats to pubic safety where there were none, ordered the chief of the Metro Police to take care of it. Perhaps the Square should be ringed with fences, the security conscious Lord advised. That way, if trouble came at least the trouble-makers could more easily be rounded up.

Annie Besant was also thinking about tactics. To that end, she had organized a Socialist Defense Association so those in jail could get legal help. Many of the charges were being trumped up. She also assembled a group of well-to-do supporters who would show up night or day in response to a telegram and bail out anyone unjustly arrested.

The boiling point finally came on November 13. The Radical Federation had called for a major march and rally that Sunday in response to three abuses of power. One was the imprisonment of a Member of Parliament, another was the ongoing repression in Ireland. But the primary focus of the day was the notorious Coercion Act, which had suspended civil rights indefinitely. Annie was invited to speak.

Four days before the rally Sir Charles Warren, the Home Secretary, issued an order forbidding meetings in the Square. However, he simultaneously offered private assurances that “legitimate political gatherings” would not be disrupted. On Saturday he changed his mind again and issued a final order banning all processions.

Delegates from the labor and radical clubs, the Fabians, Social Democratic Federation and Socialist League met that Saturday night. There was little time to deliberate, however, so in the end they opted to move ahead. They would gather at various places around the city in hopes of disorienting the authorities by approaching the Square from several directions. What they didn’t know was that spies had tipped off the police and the place was surrounded before they arrived. Backing up the coppers were squadrons of “life guards” with bayonets. It looked like what it was — a massacre in the making.

He had seen it go down remotely in the desert. Annie wearing her usual outfit, the neckerchief, short skirt and boots that had captured Tonio’s attention, leading a procession from Clerkenwell Green along the city’s narrow streets. Thousands more marching from Holborn, Bermondsey and Deptford.

Before the riot was over thousands of citizens were injured, many of them newcomers to protest and police violence. Just south of Trafalgar, a young writer named Alfred Linnell was fatally injured by a horse.The next morning, still dazed and traumatized, dozens of decent people were sentenced to jail in Bow Street Police Court. William Stead quickly launched his own defense fund and raised enough money within days to free everyone on appeal. Annie defiantly led them out of Millbank Prison, bruised and battered but unbowed.

More cynical than most, G. B. Shaw called it “the most abjectly disgraceful defeat ever suffered by a band of heroes outnumbering their foes a thousand to one.” Then again, no one considered it a rousing success. Three people had died. And what was gained? Nothing as far as Tonio could tell.

Within days it was known as Bloody Sunday.

The riot became a turning point for Annie. Due to her identification with the march she moved from being well-known to famous and, in some circles, notorious. It also confirmed what her old friend Charles Bradlaugh feared and deepened the break between them. Not only had she joined forces with the Socialists, she hadn’t even consulted him before leading the disastrous march. Fighting for freedom was one thing, but to Bradlaugh this looked like an invitation to slaughter.

Annie agreed in one sense. The situation was dire, possibly deadly, and having faith in the legal system felt increasingly naive. But she had reached the conclusion that more radical action was required. At least Stead and the socialists were prepared to fight back. In private moments, however, she wasn’t so certain. Neither socialism nor atheism seemed to offer the real answers the world needed.

London, July 11, 1888

THE HOUSE of Commons was a model of architectural symmetry and political pragmatism. When the chamber was full during parliamentary debates, government supporters took seats to the right of the speaker’s chair. Opponents and others sat on the left. Senior members from both camps, the so-called “front benchers,” occupied seats closest to the center. Separating the opposing sides was a gangway, known as the Floor, measuring the distance of two swords.

The original reason for the gangway was to prevent duels from breaking out.

Located at the north end of Westminster Palace on the banks of the Thames, the ornate chamber was originally called St. Stephen’s Chapel, part of the royal residence until the “lower house” moved in from Westminster Abbey. Over the next few centuries the medieval look faded and finally vanished until the entire palace was remodeled in the early nineteenth. Less than a decade later, an accidental fire destroyed both chambers of parliament and most of the residence.

The next round of renovations took twenty years, this time a controversial mixture of Sir Charles Barry’s conservative Gothic style and the neo-classical approach becoming popular in the States. The work wasn’t done until 1860, just as young Charles Bradlaugh, then emerging as one of the country’s leading freethinkers, launched The National Reformer.

Almost thirty years later, in the same chamber, he and two other MPs were waiting as Annie Besant arrived with a delegation of matchstick girls. Most were under sixteen years old.

After years of resisting the oath of office and repeatedly facing jail and disenfranchisement, Bradlaugh had finally succeeded in winning the right to speak and to vote in parliament in 1886. Since then he and Annie had parted ways over Socialism and Bloody Sunday. But they were on the same page about the matchstick strike.

Matchgirl Strikers 1888

Tonio had selected the moment carefully. For months, in secret, he’d assembled his profile and concluded that this was the best opportunity to see Annie at the peak of her political career in London. In June, after attending a talk by Clementina Black at the Fabian Society, she had interviewed some women who worked at the Bryant & May match factory and published a searing account in The Link. They called the story “White Slavery in London.”

“Born in slums,” Annie wrote, “driven to work while still children, undersized because under-fed, oppressed because helpless, flung aside as soon as worked out. Who cares if they die or go on to the streets, provided that Bryant & May shareholders get their 23 per cent and Mr. Theodore Bryant can erect statues and buy parks?

“Girls are used to carry boxes on their heads until the hair is rubbed off and the young heads are bald at fifteen years of age. Country clergymen with shares in Bryant & May’s, draw down on your knee your fifteen year old daughter; pass your hand tenderly over the silky clustering curls. Rejoice in the dainty beauty of the thick, shiny tresses.”

Using hard facts and compelling imagery she drove home the extreme working conditions and the severe, often deadly effects of the phosphorous used to make matches. Hair loss was just the start. The skin of many girls turned yellow over time, then green and black as they succumbed to a deadly form of bone cancer known as phossy jaw. The use of phosphorous in manufacturing was banned in the US and Sweden, but Britain’s government considered such a restriction a dangerous restraint of trade.

The girls at Bryant & May worked fourteen hours a day for less than five shillings a week. At times they didn’t even get that due to a draconian system of fines that covered things like talking or taking a toilet break without permission. The fine for arriving late was half a day’s wage.

Shortly after her article appeared Bryant & May management circulated a statement along with a demand that workers sign. The statement basically said that the undersigned were satisfied with their conditions. Several workers refused, organizers were fired, and before the end of June more than a thousand girls were out on strike. The Salvation Army soon joined in the call for better factory conditions.

The Times blamed Annie and other agitators for the labor “unrest.”

On July 4 she received an anonymous note. “Dear Lady,” it began, “they have been trying to get the poor girls to say that it is all lies that has been printed and trying to make us sign papers that it is all lies; dear Lady nobody knows what it is we have to put up with and we will not sign them. We thank you very much for the kindness you have shown to us. My dear Lady we hope you will not get into any trouble on our behalf as what you have spoken is quite true.”
Annie was moved to tears, and soon action.

Two days after the letter arrived, all work at the Bryant & May factory ground to a halt and a delegation of one hundred women approached her for help. A strike fund was quickly established, with Shaw, Beatrice Potter and Sidney Webb distributing the funds collected. Stead and others used their newspaper outlets to increase the pressure and launch a boycott.

But the striking girls also wanted a union and Annie was their first choice to lead it.

BRADLAUGH BROUGHT two allies with him to the meeting. Samuel Montagu, a member representing Whitechapel, was the son of a Liverpool watchmaker who had become a successful banker and philanthropist. He was also an Orthodox Jew and had recently founded a Federation of Synagogues in the East End. The third MP was James Bryce, a liberal jurist and historian who represented the city’s Tower Hamlets before moving to South Aberdeen.

Once the girls sat, Annie reviewed the issues involved in the strike, her role and their demands. “After my story appeared I was threatened with libel,” she recalled, “but it was easier to strike at the girls. That’s why we are here. Although we appreciate Mr. Bradlaugh’s support and the questions he is asking, this won’t be settled until we can sit down with management.”

“Mr. Bryant is a reasonable man,” offered Bryce. “What’s his response?”

“He don’t like publicity,” one girl snorted. “But he ain’t said a thing.”

“What could he do?”

“Improve the air is one thing, sir,” an older girl replied bluntly. “After they added that upper floor to the place, the ventilation didn’t work no more. The fumes is so thick you can barely breathe. That’s the real reason we get sick.”

Annie pointed out that since the girls took meals inside the factory, phosphorous was also being ingested with their food. If someone complained about the pain as their teeth rotted from the poison, foremen had them pulled, often by brute force and without permission.

“We need Mr. Bryant to stop listening to his foremen and meet with us,” she said.

Bradlaugh called the company’s actions intolerable, but admitted that, no matter how many speeches he and others made, a legislative solution would take far too long, if it came at all. “Your power is the public’s good opinion,” he advised, “more effective and timely in this case than any action by this chamber of cowards.”
Some of the girls gasped, shocked by his candor and condemnation of both colleagues and his class. None except Annie had ever been inside the intimidating room before or witnessed a parliamentary debate.

After listening quietly for twenty minutes Montagu joined the discussion by posing a larger question. “What concerns me, beyond addressing the egregious conditions you have brought to the nation’s attention, is the ultimate goal of the movement that appears to be underway. As I see it, there are two schools of thought — gradualism or revolution.

“So, is it to be the Fabian’s path or Marx and Morris?”

“If not the one it will be the other,” Annie replied. “Are we asking so much? The right to organize collectively, to take meals in a separate room to prevent contamination and illness, the reinstatement of those who have been fired, an end to the arbitrary fines and unfair deductions from wages. All of that, yes! We also want to bypass the foremen and bring the grievances directly to management. If they hadn’t prevented complaints from being heard for so long,” she scolded, “many girls could have been saved.”

Although Tonio had insisted on this precise time and place, the matchgirls’ strike, even the opportunity to witness this unique encounter, wasn’t the ultimate reason for his timing. It was a destination of opportunity. Even with a device that could take you to virtually any place or time you still needed to choose exactly when and where. You could visit London through the Jump Room forever and never run into the person you wanted to see. But on this particular day, Tonio knew where Annie would be.

She strode toward the gangway to address the girls huddled to one side and the old men on the other. “Where is the real cure for our sorrow? How will we rescue the world? Do we seek more? Absolutely! But the road is long and has many turns. Today we fight for health and fairness, tomorrow perhaps for a common room, a refuge for girls who never had a proper home, a welcoming atmosphere and a bit of comradeship. If necessary, Mr. Montagu, yes, we are ready for revolution. The poor, after all, have little to lose. But at this point I still hold onto hope for gradual improvement, a peaceful path to liberate the enslaved and change the world.

“What we need is a movement of love and self-sacrifice,” she said, “inspiring us to give rather than take.”

These moments are excerpted from Dons of Time, Chapters 22 (Doubts) and 25 (Struggle). From Fomite Press, also available from Amazon 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 19th Century Protest and the Matchgirls Strike (1888): Annie Besant, London’s First Wonder Woman

After three weeks as president, Donald Trump has turned out to be “same as the old boss,” definitely when it comes to US foreign policy. The short explanation is every US president merely plays a puppet figurehead role, taking his orders directly from the New World Order elite and their neocon surrogates, fast moving us towards one world government tyranny that will be the ultimate outcome of a simultaneous collapse of the global economy timed with the launch of another world war.

Just as there was no difference between the same neocon interventionist aggression displayed under Obama and the war crime-ridden Bush-Cheney administration, President Trump is now also marching quickstep down that same seamless path towards world war as did Obama. Regardless of who or what party occupies the White House, the one constant is an aggressive foreign policy delivered by deep state neocons entrenched in Washington power for many decades now. And the neocons take their orders from the ruling elite.

Trump the candidate promised a major shift in US foreign policy towards a far more sensible, even planet-saving, non-interventionist, “America first” approach, avoiding the constant meddling entanglements in other nations’ internal affairs that only polarizes the geopolitical chessboard towards increasing global conflict.

It appeared as though the United States might finally be free of the near four decade long bipartisan neo-conned control bent on maintaining US Empire at all cost, insisting on the status quo of unipolar sole world superpower hegemony and full frontal military dominance. The neocons refuse to live in a world where power is shared with emerging regional players Russia and China.

And since neocons are still in control in Washington, after just three weeks in the White House, it’s already disturbingly clear that the Trump presidency will be no different from the rest, racing full speed ahead, plunging the earth straight into a homicidal if not suicidal course toward World War III. Be it through escalating existing wars in Syria and Ukraine that lead to bigger wars with Iran, China and Russia, the Bush-Obama-Trump regime seems hell bent on world destruction. Meanwhile even at home, Washington’s ever-rising authoritarian control and the violent anti-Trump mania are creating conditions ripe for even a domestic civil war to break out.

Evidence of this disastrous road we’re already traveling at breakneck speed on is overwhelming. Just the fact that Elliot Abrams, a neocon from way back to the Reagan-Bush senior-Iran Contra days is currently up for consideration as deputy secretary of state, speaks volumes that we’re about to be pushed off the doomsday cliff.

This presentation will focus on specific actions that the Trump administration has already completed that provide more than enough proof that we’re perhaps just weeks if not months away from escalating yet more catastrophic war. This analysis addresses the likelihood of imminent global war based on the three year old violent conflict in Ukraine ratcheting up now, and how that hotspot is being used to undermine, neutralize and effectively reverse promises that Trump the candidate made to cooperate with Putin. The bottom line is neocon forces greater than the president still hold the agenda to continue to demonize Putin in their race to global war.

Reminiscent of the tag team duo of the corporate press working in tandem with the federal government, first we had Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham over in Ukraine egging on the US illegally installed puppet neo-Nazi regime in Kiev to launch yet another offensive into the former Ukraine eastern provinces, now the Donbass region on January 2nd as a new year’s prelude of what’s to come in 2017. Then like predictable, synchronized clockwork, US mainstream media as typically represented by a February 1st Foreign Policy article was quick to claim that Putin delivered the Trump administration its first foreign policy test. The hit piece falsely charged Russia with firing off countless rocket and artillery rounds at Ukrainian forces, killing a dozen Kiev soldiers the last few days of January. Another MSM war propaganda headline, this time Newsweek’s, read “While Trump Fiddles, Putin Steps Up The War In Ukraine.”

These articles emphasize that the renewed volley of Russian “aggression” came just one day after Trump and Putin’s hour long first phone conversation agreeing to work peaceably together as partners fighting the common ISIS/al Qaeda enemy as well as forging a plan to diminish hostilities in Ukraine. As is typical of Western press to vilify Putin, Foreign Policy conspicuously plants the notion that Putin launching artillery strikes in Ukraine has already proven he is betraying Trump’s trust.

The piece goes on to report that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) contends that Russia unilaterally stepped up its shelling against Kiev forces to the extent that after 2600 counted rounds fired on January 29th, so many came later that OSCE lost track. As far back as a decade ago Putin exposed OSCE as a propaganda front for Western aggression in Ukraine as well as throughout Eastern Europe to further its own imperialistic and geopolitical interests to encircle, isolate and weaken Russia. Of course that has been the US foreign policy all along with both Russia and China.

The 2014 conflict erupted in eastern Ukraine after the Russian ethnic majority residing in Donetsk and Lugansk voted in a spring referendum for their independence from Ukraine, prompting the Kiev government to invade the Donbass region to oppose the freedom fighting separatists. Once again the West backing Ukraine is lined up on the wrong side of history as Kiev has engaged in ethnic cleansing and as of two years ago killed over 10,000 civilians in Donbass. In the meantime Kiev has made repeated accusations that OSCE is failing its assigned task as a neutral monitoring observer but instead favors the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) military. This underlying dynamic may contribute to OSCE now pointing the finger at Putin as the latest aggressor, as a demonstration to Kiev and the West that it can act “impartially.”

In any case, an anonymous defense official reiterated the Pentagon’s position that it was anticipating Putin aggression in Ukraine designed to assess what he could get away with early on in the Trump administration. The US defense propagandist stated to FP:

This is all very calculated to have this open, bleeding sore on Ukraine’s body politic that will allow [Russia] to manipulate the situation and the politics of the country, and thereby keep Ukraine in this post-Soviet kleptocratic orbit.

The FP article goes on to innocuously slip in a sentence that’s clearly intended to soften Ukraine’s long planned Donbass offensive backed by US war hawks McCain and Graham, clearly violating the 2014 Minsk cease-fire agreement:

Ukrainian forces also appear to be advancing into the no-man’s land separating government-controlled territory from rebel-held areas…

Reports from on the ground indicate that the real aggressor on January 28th was the Ukrainian army that began shelling DPR forces. The Kiev military moved on the offensive south of Donetsk, only to encounter minefields, in large part accounting for the couple dozen fatalities. Accusing DPR of a false flag attack was mainly to recruit Western sympathy, material support and more mercenaries for the unstable Poroshenko regime that’s steeped in political corruption and economic upheaval.

Earlier in the month the McCain-Graham envoy had promised additional support for another campaign into Donbass despite never having any legal authority, as still acting President Obama at least officially did not send them abroad. Thus, the bobsy twins may have in effect violated the Logan Act of 1799 which prohibits Americans in foreign countries operating outside presidential authority to interfere with foreign policy as set by the president. For their undermining the Trump presidency and ceaseless warmongering, even Trump called them out for their latest devious ploy to trigger World War III.

The fact that Trump has made statements during his campaign indicating that he would be open to normalizing relations with Moscow, lifting sanctions and advocates disbanding NATO poses a serious threat to the likes of the two treasonous senators and their nucleus of neocon policymakers who’ve been consistently aiming to provoke war against Russia for over three years now. Ever since the February 2014 US induced Kiev coup and a month later Putin’s legal annexation of Crimea after the ethnic Russians in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia (which from 1783-1954 Crimea had always been part of Russia). And then even from 1954-1990, Crimea was part of the Soviet Union as a USSR state within Ukraine, but still belonged to the nation that was the USSR.

While Obama was still president and the chicken hawk senators snuck over to Ukraine, Kiev then waited till after Trump’s inauguration before unleashing its greenlighted invasion further into Donbass. The Kiev military incursion has far more to do with testing what Western backed Ukraine can get away with on both Trump and Putin’s watch than any Putin testing of Trump waters. After all, Putin once again is not the aggressor. The offensive was solely executed so Empire neocons could sabotage the Trump-Putin relationship and prevent peace from breaking out. Only war is permitted by the Washington evildoers.

As part of the anti-Moscow propaganda to justify the latest Kiev military campaign, the Ukraine defense minister accused a Russian oil rig in the Black Sea of firing upon and damaging a Ukraine Navy transport plane. A Russian defense ministry spokesperson denies any Russian ground fire occurred, reporting that the Ukrainian plane was merely warned with four flash signals by rig security that the plane was flying too low, endangering Russian personnel working on two oil rig platforms and nearly hitting a rig tower in two simulated fly-overs.

These types of aerial aggression stunts are common forms of intimidation and provocation used for propaganda purposes as yet another false flag to further justify war escalation and retaliation. The just retired NATO deputy secretary general pounced on it, claiming the incident proves that Russia is not at all interested in peace with Ukraine. In his words:

[The Kremlin] may be trying to test the new administration to see if they distance themselves from Kiev, and tell [Ukraine President] Petro Poroshenko that he has to make the best deal with Russia, which of course would destroy him politically.

Last week formerly disgraced CIA director General David Petraeus testified before the House Armed Services Committee. It’s a bad sign when Congress seeks the “expert” testimony from a top US spy who lied to the FBI after violating the Espionage Act, breeching national security by handing over highly classified material to his mistress. Prior to that crime, the war criminal was a military war commander on two fronts. Petraeus was singularly the most responsible general for causing the sectarian civil war in Iraq that eventually led to the ISIS Sunni invasion as well as contributed to the US still ongoing military defeat in Afghanistan. Petraeus trained Shiite death squads that killed thousands of Sunnis who later became Islamic State terrorists.

And it was Petraeus who wrote the war bible – the US Army Counter Insurgency (COIN) manual – that strategically defined how America’s twenty-first century wars would be fought and lost, at enormous costs and wastes replacing many military functions with private civilian security contractors (such as hired mercenaries like Blackwater) in a failed “nation-building” attempt to imperialistically “democratize” the Middle East, proving a complete humiliating disaster in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But Petraeus’ notorious career of abject failures has now apparently earned him the status of a foreign policy guru. On February 1st the guru warned the House:

[Putin] understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU.

You can see where all this is going. Petraeus reporting that Russia, China, Iran as well as the terrorists all pose an “unprecedented threat” is part of the staged war prepping narrative. The Washington political war machine is in full swing, ensuring that an alliance with Russia can never happen, despite whatever Trump the candidate may have uttered. That was then, this is now. So war in Ukraine once again becomes the bogus rallying cry to ensure the US-EU-NATO glue sticks together against those “imperialistic, warring” Russians bent on splintering centuries’ old allies. The elite and their neocons will not allow Brexit, strained Washington-Brussels relations or Trump nationalism ever get in their way.

Western press explains the enormous troop buildup of US-NATO forces complete with US-German-NATO tanks amassed along the Baltic state-Russian border to “protect” NATO allies from big bad Russian expansion. This again is all fabricated prewar propaganda prepping us for the war to come. Trump the candidate grumbled how once he becomes president, Europe will need to pay for its own defense. The former secretary general of NATO called that “a breach of solidarity” with Europe, warning:

The Russians would see that as a bonanza that they would try and exploit by convincing countries like Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that the US couldn’t be counted on.

Another lockdown to prevent thawed Russia-US relations is the rigid adherence to extending economic sanctions against Russia over Crimea and Donbass. After Trump the candidate had hinted to lift the sanctions, UK Prime Minister Theresa May rushed to Washington to ensure they stay in place and that Trump renews US commitment to NATO. GOP faithful like McCain threatened to pass laws to codify the sanctions should Trump let up. So you can see that the anti-Putin vilification and cold war still rage on with the latest lying rhetoric and external threats brought to bear against the US president to stay with status quo or else.

And to prove that Trump the president has succumbed to holding the anti-Russian hardline, Trump’s brand new UN ambassador Nikki Haley on her very first day at the office sounded the alarm at the UN Security Council, mimicking the same broken record as her neocon predecessor Samantha Power:

I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia. It is unfortunate because it is a replay of far too many instances over many years in which Unites States representatives have needed to do that… Unites States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

In response a Russian senator tweeted:

It looks like the new US representative at the UN came with remarks that were written by Power.

Nikki Haley obviously received her orders from above to slam Russia despite the US-Kiev collusion to recently renew aggression towards the citizens of Donbass. She also showed ignorance in failing to know that Crimea’s Ukrainian history was short. It was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1990, thus the Black Sea peninsula was forcibly part of Ukraine for less than a quarter century. Yet the entire pretext for US condemning Russia over Ukraine is completely based upon a lie. So are the sanctions, and so will the coming war. Again, this entire anti-Russian false narrative is such a nauseatingly tiresome US theme.

American exceptionalism means the murderous world bully can continue operating with total impunity while wrongly accusing Russia constantly, or any other nation in its crosshairs, of the exact same sinful crimes that Empire perpetrates every single day of the year. Empire’s European vassals and smaller intimidated countries must silently toe the line or else they too will be unjustly targeted with lies and punishment in the form of illegal invasions and wars (be it US boots on the ground or proxy allied mercenary terrorists), inhumane economic sanctions, trade embargoes, regime change coups and assassinations.

The only guilty nation that remains judge, jury and executioner in this world of other countries is the United States.

And Trump has already demonstrated as the White House figurehead that he is not in control but follows his globalist marching orders. Thus Trump is powerless to change rigid foreign policy still being dictated by the neocons. Nothing will change in Ukraine except more death and violence will escalate to the larger arena. Russia is still the West’s scapegoat as is every other nation that asserts its own will and independence free of the killing Empire. Only the US has invaded dozens of sovereign nations, initiated more wars and maintained the most aggressive foreign policy of any nation on earth over the last century. But it’s always Russia that’s the falsely accused aggressor that Washington and its corporate media endlessly hype in order to further justify Empire aggression and violence. After all, war has always been an American agenda.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neocons Use Ukraine to Reverse Trump Plan to Thaw Relations with Putin and Wage Global War
trump_putin

The Russia Review Act: Senate Aims to Block Trump From Lifting Sanctions on Russia

By Stephen Lendman, February 10 2017

Called the “Russia Review Act,” it establishes a review process, giving congressional members oversight over whether to maintain or lift sanctions, preventing unilateral Trump action. It requires the White House to submit a report, explaining why it seeks sanctions removal, a 120-day review period following, giving Congress final say on whether to maintain or ease sanctions in question.

iran syria

Iran has been “Implacable in the Rejection of Washington’s Destructive Role in Syria”

By Prof. Tim Anderson, February 10 2017

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia.  In an interview with Khamenei.ir, he answers questions about the Syrian crisis, the Astana peace talks as well as the role of Iran, Russia and Turkey in the peace process.

Flag_of_California.svg

Calexit: Should California Secede?

By David Swanson and Ann Garrison, February 10 2017

On November 21st, California secessionists calling themselves “Yes California” filed papers with the California Secretary of State proposing a November 2018 ballot measure that would ask registered voters whether California should secede from the US and become its own nation. If passed, the measure would strike language from California’s constitution that says the state is “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

Trump-Dakota-pipeline-714x350

Dakota Access Pipeline Approved a Week After Co-Owner’s Pipeline Spilled 600,000 Gallons of Oil in Texas

By Steve Horn, February 10 2017

On January 30, 600,000 gallons (14,285 barrels) of oil spewed out of Enbridge’s Seaway Pipeline in Blue Ridge, Texas, the second spill since the pipeline opened for business in mid-2016. Seaway is half owned by Enbridge and serves as the final leg of a pipeline system DeSmog has called the “Keystone XLClone,” which carries mostly tar sands extracted from Alberta, Canada, across the U.S. at a rate of 400,000 barrels per day down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Australia-and-China-hands

Triumphing over Reality: China, Australia and Free Trade

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 10 2017

The suspended reality across the Pacific took hold as the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, conversed with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in a state of mild delusion. Assuming the air of a clairvoyant, Bishop insisted that she knew that the United States would not repudiate its own free trade agreement with Australia. Knowledge, however, soon changed to disbelief.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: US Senate’s Anti-Russia Legislation, Iran’s Role in Syria Crisis, Calexit: Should California Secede?

Triumphing over Reality: China, Australia and Free Trade

February 10th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The suspended reality across the Pacific took hold as the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, conversed with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in a state of mild delusion. Assuming the air of a clairvoyant, Bishop insisted that she knew that the United States would not repudiate its own free trade agreement with Australia.

Knowledge, however, soon changed to disbelief. “I can’t believe it,” she is reported to have said. “I don’t take it credibly.” Surely, the United States would not withdraw from the Australian-US free trade agreement, its own brainchild and inspiration. The trade balance favoured the US in any case. The paternal figure would eventually make sense, and step back from the precipice of madness.

Observers should have immediately noted the perverse scenario. Australia had been shown up by the agreement to be distinctly outplayed and outdone in its trade with the US. (Some states simply have a freer regime than others.)

It was a lesson in diplomatic failure: poorly briefed officials facing far more experienced teams nourished by international trade conventions; a chronic inability on the part of Canberra to identify a coherent interest in even having such an arrangement with Washington.

Touted as the great producer of jobs and an economic boost, the agreement has served Washington’s interests far more than Canberra’s, who could probably do with its scrapping. The US trade surplus has ballooned from $14 billion a year to $25 billion a decade after it came into force.

The air of unreality was also to be found across in Washington, where a form of medicated denial had taken hold of Australia’s officials. In Washington, Australia’s ambassador, the lumbering Joe Hockey, could merely observe with bewilderment that, “By ratifying the TPP, the United States will ensure it will continue to have a major leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region…. The cost of failure may well be too great to imagine.” Always lacking imagination, Hockey’s apocalyptic scenarios were left open and unspecific.

With more than a hint of irony, the TPP was the very same trade bloc that was designed as a buffer against a belligerently confident China, despite Beijing’s willingness to join it. “When more than 95 per cent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy.” So claimed that picture of modest imperialism, President Barack Obama. “We should write those rules…” Australia, trapped between marauding interests, could only squirm in both directions, hoping its elasticity would hold out.

Bishop was certainly in the mood to please, courting a more sympathetic China. “At a time of economic transition and uncertainty around the world, Australia reassures China that we are a reliable partner and that we shall continue to place a strong trade and economic relationship as one of our highest priorities.”[1]

Thinking what President Trump will do next is not the same as knowing it. At the moment, he has been good to his word in placing countries on a bilateral footing – in order of importance. The TPP has already had an ignominious funeral, and Trump’s officials are seeking a lucrative deal with Japan.

These movements are lost on Bishop. What matters is which golden bottom to sniff next, which cavity of power to survey. This self-inflicted Australian dilemma necessitates the snake-like crawl across diplomatic tables: what can we do for you, sir, comes the sibilant inquiry?

In the case of the United States, Australia remains a military and satellite installation of some importance, a ready-made Gurkha outfit happy to dive in with US forces into any distant theatre of operation. But in terms of economic worth, China tends to be the power to please with prostate willingness, the consumer of Australian commodities and driver of demand for iron ore.

Navigating between these two geopolitical hegemons is never easy, though the spectacle, when it involves officials from Canberra, tends to be embarrassing. Discussing free trade with a Communist state, while deciding to discount the views of a newly elected presidential administration in the US, was one of the more peculiar ones.

Wang showed continued interest in keeping the globalisation bandwagon moving, despite populist reactions in Europe and the United States. “It is important to steer economic globalisation towards greater inclusiveness, broader shared benefit and in a more sustainable way.” China, in other words, was edging towards global leadership.

Taking every cue from the US trade mission philosophy, Wang was keen that every state “firmly uphold the international trading regime with the WTO at the core and we need to promote trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation and we need to take a firm stand against all forms of protectionism.” Beijing, it would seem, hopes for the last laugh.

Sources on the reaction of Wang to Bishop would make any alert critic cringe. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, “Mr Wang concluded his day with Ms Bishop by kissing her on both cheeks after dinner, an unprecedented gesture, much remarked upon by accompanying officials.”[2]

That is not all. Benevolent Beijing was informing Australia that it could have a cake of sorts and eat it too, continuing “to be an ally of the US, at the same time to be [a] comprehensive strategic partner for China.”[3] The Australian foreign minister would have been delighted at that. Dispensation from strategic neurosis – at long last granted.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/07/australias-relationship-china-could-not-be-stronger-bishop-says
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-dismisses-donald-trumps-threat-to-tear-up-free-trade-agreement-20170209-gu9kb9.html
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-dismisses-donald-trumps-threat-to-tear-up-free-trade-agreement-20170209-gu9kb9.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Triumphing over Reality: China, Australia and Free Trade

The furor unleashed by the remarks of President Donald Trump in response to Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly’s calling Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer” during an interview broadcast Sunday has continued to reverberate, drawing hypocritical condemnations from leading figures in both the Republican and Democratic parities.

In response to O’Reilly’s denunciation of Putin, Trump stated: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”

Trump went on to cite Iraq in support of his statement. O’Reilly’s face went slack. He clearly did not know what to say. The new leader of the “Free World” had wandered seriously off message.

As far as the capitalist politicians of both parties and the media are concerned, Trump committed an unpardonable offense: he—in this one instance, and for purely pragmatic reasons related to his immediate political needs—had said something true about US imperialism’s role in the world.

The official posture of outrage over Trump’s off-hand comment will have little effect on the broader public. Do the politicians and media really believe that the public is so naïve and its memory so short? The United States is a country where The Bourne Identity­ and its innumerable sequels–whose basic premise is that the US government is run by murderers–are among the most popular movies of the last twenty years. This premise is well grounded in fact. Over the past 70 years, presidents and other high government officials have been implicated in the authorization and implementation of countless atrocities. Many of these crimes have been substantiated in official government reports and congressional hearings.

In a review of Joshua Kurlantzick’s A Great Place to Have a War: America in Laos and the Birth of the Military CIA, reviewer Scott Shane wrote in the February 3 edition of The New York Times :

“Speaking last September in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, Barack Obama mentioned a staggering fact: that the United States had between 1963 and 1974 dropped two million tons of bombs on the country, more than the total loosed on Germany and Japan together during World War II. That made Laos, which is slightly smaller than Michigan, the most heavily bombed nation in history, the president said. More than four decades after the end of the war, unexploded ordnance is still killing and maiming Laotians, and Obama announced that he was doubling American funding to remove it.”

Calling attention to information in Kurlantzick’s book, Shane noted: “In his first presidential term, Richard M. Nixon escalated the bombing from about 15 sorties per day to 300 per day. ‘How many did we kill in Laos?’ Nixon asked Henry Kissinger one day in a conversation caught on tape. Kissinger replied: ‘In the Laotian thing, we killed about 10, 15’–10,000 or 15,000 people, he meant. The eventual death toll would be 200,000.”

When it comes to killing, the US Government is without equal. In multiple wars of aggression, from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the proxy war for regime-change in Syria, US imperialism has killed and maimed tens of millions.

The chief accusation being leveled against Trump–by both supposed liberals in the Democratic Party and right-wing Republicans–is that he implied a “moral equivalence” between Russia and the US. This was a phrase used during the Cold War to justify every crime committed by the US and its allies, from Latin America’s bloody dictatorships to the Apartheid regime in South Africa, on the grounds that there could be no “moral equivalence” between the leader of the “Free World” and the Soviet “Evil Empire.”

There is, in fact, no equivalence. When it comes to killing and global thuggery, Putin is a small fry compared to the leaders of the United States.

That the Democratic Party jumps on this reactionary bandwagon only proves that there is nothing progressive whatsoever in its purported opposition to Trump. This was exemplified Monday by the remarks of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a supposed “left” Democrat and leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who suggested that Trump should be impeached for “wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea [sic].”

Underlying the furor over Trump’s remarks are fierce divisions over US imperialist strategy and Washington’s preparations for war that have been brought into the open with the change of administrations.

These differences have been exacerbated by recent events in Syria. The Syrian government’s retaking in December of eastern Aleppo, the last urban stronghold of the US-backed “rebels,” represented a colossal setback for US policy in the Middle East.

There are bitter recriminations within the foreign policy establishment over the Obama administration’s backing off of its “red line” in 2013, when it nearly went to war over false charges of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. Within these circles, there are many who feel that a military intervention would have been better for US interests, no matter what new catastrophe it unleashed.

An article published in the Washington Post Monday, warning that the US faces “a far stronger Iran” after “years of turmoil in the Arab world,” spelled out the situation that Washington now confronts in stark terms:

“Iran and Russia together have fought to ensure the survival of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and they are now pursuing a peace settlement in alliance with Turkey that excludes a role for the United States. America has been left with few friends and little leverage, apart from the Kurds in the northeast of the country.

“Russia controls the skies over Syria, and Turkey wields influence over the rebels, but Iran holds sway on the ground …”

Talk of “respecting” Putin, possible collaboration with Russia against ISIS in Syria, and an easing of sanctions is not, as the Democrats have suggested, evidence of some secret control exercised by the Kremlin over Trump. It is, rather, part of a definite strategy of peeling Russia off from Iran in order to pave the way for a new war in the Middle East, while sharply escalating provocations against China.

Citing unnamed administration officials, the Wall Street Journal spelled this policy out on Monday: “The administration is exploring ways to break Russia’s military and diplomatic alliance with Iran… The emerging strategy seeks to reconcile President Donald Trump’s seemingly contradictory vows to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and to aggressively challenge the military presence of Iran.”

Trump’s chief White House strategist and adviser, Stephen Bannon, a student and admirer of Adolf Hitler, no doubt views the administration’s pivot toward Moscow through the historical prism of the Stalin-Hitler pact, which set the stage for the Second World War, a war that ultimately claimed 20 million Soviet lives.

Putin’s government is susceptible to such maneuvers. It shares all of the stupidity, backwardness and shortsightedness of the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy headed by Stalin. Putin sits atop a regime that represents a rapacious clique of oligarchs who enriched themselves through theft of state property and the extraction and sale of the resources of the former Soviet Union. They are anxious to see US sanctions lifted so that they can accelerate their accumulation of wealth at the expense of the Russian working class.

Within the US political establishment and Washington’s vast military and intelligence apparatus, there exists sharp opposition to Trump’s turn in foreign policy. Immense political, military and financial resources have been invested in the buildup against Russia, from the coup in Ukraine to the deployment of thousands of US and NATO troops on Russia’s western border. There are concerns within ruling circles that a shift in imperialist strategy is reckless and poses serious dangers.

While popular attention and outrage have been focused on Trump’s anti-democratic executive orders imposing a ban on Muslims and refugees, ordering a wall built on the southern border, and laying the groundwork for a mass dragnet against undocumented immigrant workers, within the ruling class a serious fight is being waged over global imperialist strategy.

This fight over policy is between two bands of cutthroats, each of which is committed to an escalation of US militarism to further the profit interests of the US-based banks and transnational corporations. Whichever one wins out, the threat of world war, rooted in the crisis of global capitalism, will only grow.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Blurts out the Truth about US Killings and the Media Goes Wild

In her last book before she died, UK author Jennifer Diski wrote, “Under no circumstances is anyone to say that I lost a battle with cancer. … [I] will have nothing whatever to do with any notion of desert, punishment, fairness or unfairness, or any kind of moral causality.”

Two friends say they don’t like the “battle” because it makes winners and losers. They just got lucky, they say.

Of course, luck makes winners and losers. My own dislike is for how we win or lose. When I have no choice but to stare at the lights of an oncoming train, I’m a loser. When I again embrace the false belief in a guaranteed future, I win.

In truth, we are all on the train tracks, just as portrayed in Alex Colville’s famous painting. When cancer withdraws its threat, and my prognosis improves, annihilation is still speeding toward me.

Ah, but we mustn’t talk that way.

In Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, Settembrini, the sunny liberal optimist, despises “the tie that binds [us] … to disease and death”. Yet Settembrini is dying. Lauding Progress and Science, and denying his own condition, he’s like “ancient Gauls who shot their arrows against Heaven”.

Part of Mann’s point to post-war Europe was that Liberalism was taking human beings out of nature, forgetting that we’re subject to laws of nature, like everything else in the universe. Indviduals have power to seize their destiny, the slogan went (and goes). Settembrini couldn’t seize his. More significant, he didn’t know it.

Sensitive thinkers say the art of dying and the art of living are the same. The reason is simple: All life, including human life, involves decay. Every moment involves change, which is loss. We live better, with less fear, if we see things as they are. Illusions create false expectations, which fail, causing misery.

We don’t teach such philosophers. They are usually Asian, Indigenous, African or Latin American. Philosophy departments across Canada teach only the wisdom of white, mostly English-speaking philosophers of North Atlantic descent and/or education. Every two or ten years, a course on African or First Nations philosophy is taught but as an elective, with little impact.

And so we shore up the battle imagery. Like Settembrini, we want no truck with nature’s “evil, irrational power”.

German playwright, Bertoldt Brecht , found in ancient Chinese theatre his lifelong strategy for hard times: the best resistance is no resistance. It doesn’t mean to cave. It means to go along with open eyes, finding unexpected opportunity. Brecht contrasted this idea with one common in European theatre: the individual “standing tall” against the storm, beating the wind, declaring it shouldn’t happen.

The problem with the “cancer battle” is that it obscures another struggle: that to come to terms with essential vulnerability and the ultimate unpredictability of existence, despite science. Acknowledging existential insecurity is an achievement because it is shared by all, cancer or no cancer.

It is shared by rich white southern Ontarians and the people of Attawapiskat. Activists following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission urge non-native Canadians not to “help” but to recognize our personal stake in the well-being of the country’s first citizens. This is hard to do if we see ourselves as “lucky” and “privileged” in self-satisfied ignorance of mutual dependence.

I don’t blame medical practitioners. I blame Humanities scholars paid to provide society’s conceptual tools. They’re shooting arrows at the Heavens, seduced by Liberalism’s false freedoms. We need a conception of health that looks squarely at the lights down the tracks and tells us how to live with that reality, freely and well.

It’d be a more durable victory, and more interesting.

Susan Babbitt is author (most recently) of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014) and José Martí, Ernesto “Che” Guevara and Global Development Ethics (Palgrave Macmilan 2014).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Liberalism’s False Freedoms: What’s Wrong with the “Cancer Battle”?

Trump is considering him for the department’s number two position – perhaps an especially powerful one while Rex Tillerson transitions from Big Oil to diplomacy.

Trump transition advisor James Carafano believes Abrams is “pretty close to being named” – best known for his role in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair.

It involved covertly selling arms to Iran to fund Contra anti-Sandinista terrorists in Nicaragua. The Boland Amendment prohibited it.

For his role in the scheme, Abrams was indicted for lying to Congress, pled guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information from Congress to avoid a trial, possible conviction and imprisonment.

On Christmas night 1992, GHW Bush pardoned him and other Iran-Contra defendants – their high crimes forgiven, not forgotten.

In 1998, Abrams and other PNAC members urged “decisive action” to replace Federal Republic of Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic with pro-Western leadership. The nation’s 1999 rape followed, one of many Clinton administration high crimes.

The same year, Abrams was one of 18 PNAC signatories in a letter to Clinton, urging war on Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein, calling him a “hazard (to) a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.”

In the GW Bush administration, he was one of its architects. He drafted a proposal for seizing Iraq’s oil fields. The US installed puppet regime maintained control.

During Reagan’s two terms, Abrams held three State Department positions, including Assistant secretary for Inter-American Affairs from July 17, 1985 – January 20, 1989.

He later served as GW Bush’s Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor, supervising White House Middle East policy.

He was instrumental in the aborted two-day coup attempt to replace Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez with puppet leadership serving US interests.

In 2007, he was part of a black operation to destabilize Iran, using disinformation and manipulation of its currency, aiming for regime change.

He was a Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signatory (now called the Foreign Policy Initiative), established in 1997, comprised of neocon extremists, dedicated to seeking US global dominance through endless wars of aggression.

He’s currently connected to the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, and various other hardline groups.

He’s a notorious Zionist zealot, opposed to sympathies toward Palestinians, fundamentally against Israeli concessions to achieve conflict resolution.

He’s interventionist, pro-endless wars of aggression, advocating nation-building, what Trump said he opposes.

If appointed State’s number two, will neocon foreign policy continue unabated? Will endless imperial wars rage?

Will confrontation with China and Iran follow, risking possible nuclear war? Will hope for improved relations with Russia be dashed? Will Congress prevent it anyway?

Will dirty business as usual remain unchanged, especially US imperial madness, or will Trump manage to go another way?

America needs more peacemakers, fewer warriors. It’s not the way things usually work out.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new 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
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neocon Iran-Contra Elliot Abrams for Key Deputy Secretary of State Position?

In the past week, the press complained that the White House never published a detailed read out of the Jan. 28 Trump-Putin phone call, one of the first held by the new US president, because allegedly the staff had disabled recording equipment. Today, it was Reuters’ turn to be the latest to leak the full details of a Trump high level phone call (as reported yesterday, leaking within the Trump administration has become a major issue) this time, the highly anticipated if unrecorded call with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Reuters cited two unnamed U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

The leak, while unconfirmed – in today’s press briefing Spicer refused to comment saying it was a private call – revealed several interesting facts, first that Trump denounced the START treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads “as a bad deal for the United States.”

More notable was the disclosure that “when Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.” During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.

As Reuters adds”it has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.”

Under the terms of the New START the two countries have until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.

Previously the new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.

 During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”

The latest leak will lead to concerns that Trump “is not adequately prepared for discussions with foreign leaders”, which may or may not be favorable in future negotiations, as it keeps foreign heads of state very much off balance.

Another unique aspect of this call: Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, Reuters’ two sources said.

Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.

Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral “pre-briefing” from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.

In the phone call, Reuters also reports that Putin raised the possibility of reviving talks on a range of disputes and suggested extending New START, the sources said.

 New START can be extended for another five years, beyond 2021, by mutual agreement. Unless they agree to do that or negotiate new cuts, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers would be freed from the treaty’s limits, potentially setting the stage for a new arms race.

New START was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2010 by a vote of 71 to 26. Thirteen Republican senators joined all of the Senate’s Democrats in voting for the treaty, although Republican opponents derided it as naive.

During a prior phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which infamously turned heated and led to Trump prematurely ending the call just 20 minutes in, the US president questioned an agreement reached by the Obama administration to accept 1,250 refugees now being held by Australia in offshore detention centers. It was one of many such conversations in which Trump turned to denounce deals negotiated by previous administrations on trade, acceptance of refugees and arms control.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Leak of the Trump-Putin Phone Call, Reveals Trump Unfamiliar With Russia Nuclear Treaty

In late January, Senate Republicans John McCain and Rob Portman strongly opposed lifting sanctions on Russia, McCain saying:

“I hope President Trump will put an end to this speculation and reject such a reckless course. If he does not, I will work with my colleagues to codify sanctions against Russia into law.”

Portman claimed lifting them would damage US leadership and credibility. After 24 years under the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama, they’re damaged beyond repair.

US sanctions on Russia were illegally imposed for political reasons, no others – part of longstanding US Russia bashing, with strong bipartisan support.

On Wednesday, bipartisan Senate sanctions oversight legislation on Russia was introduced – sponsored by neocons Lindsey Graham (R. SC) and Ben Cardin (D. MD), co-sponsored by a rogue’s gallery of bipartisan senators, including GOP and Democrat leaders.

Called the “Russia Review Act,” it establishes a review process, giving congressional members oversight over whether to maintain or lift sanctions, preventing unilateral Trump action.

It requires the White House to submit a report, explaining why it seeks sanctions removal, a 120-day review period following, giving Congress final say on whether to maintain or ease sanctions in question.

The new measure follows earlier introduced legislation, titled “Countering Russian Hostilities Act of 2017,” introduced by McCain and Graham. If enacted, likely tough new sanctions on Russia will be imposed.

Perhaps other anti-Russia legislation will follow, whether veto-proof remains to be seen. Clearly, Congress is going all-out to obstruct any attempts by Trump to improve relations with Moscow.

If he ignores congressional action and acts unilaterally, an unlikely prospect, he could be impeached and removed from office – a first in US history if occurs. The closest example was Nixon’s resignation to avoid impeachment.

Separately, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly calling Putin “a killer,” saying:

“We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company.”

O’Reilly responded dismissively, saying he’s “working on that apology, but it may take a little time. You might want to check with me around…2023.”

Putin is no “killer.” He’s a preeminent world leader, a peacemaker, polar opposite a long line of US warrior presidents, waging endless wars on humanity, responsible for millions of casualties.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new 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
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russia Review Act: Senate Aims to Block Trump From Lifting Sanctions on Russia

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia.  In an interview with Khamenei.ir, he answers questions about the Syrian crisis, the Astana peace talks as well as the role of Iran, Russia and Turkey in the peace process.

The following is the full text of the interview:

How would the “Astana Talks” help solve the crisis in Syria?

I believe the Astana talks provide another opportunity for the terrorist groups and their backers to give up their useless and destructive path. What has been most significant is that those armed groups which have chosen to attend must confront Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey, with the USA, al Saud, Qatar, Britain and France excluded. That is a step closer to reality, as the latter group has only played a destructive role, up until now, while the former group is dominated by those in alliance with the Syrian alliance. Turkey alone at Astana represents the sponsors of the al Qaeda groups. Further, the NATO-GCC terrorists come as armed groups and not with the pretence of being a political ‘opposition’. If the armed groups (e.g. ‘Jaysh al Islam’) agree to put down their arms, that will leave the banned terrorist groups more isolated. If they do not agree, no-one can say they were not given an opportunity. What I call the Syrian Alliance (principally Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia) will be seen to have made every effort to avoid bloodshed.

Has Turkish involvement been helpful in recent months?

A. The practical benefit of Turkey’s recent engagement was seen in the relatively orderly evacuation of east Aleppo. That helped a more rapid liberation of that part of the city, with the deportation of several thousand terrorists and their families to their temporary position in Idlib, and the freeing of around 90 thousand civilian hostages. Turkey’s role in that effective surrender was important, as the Turkish state had become the chief sponsor of the armed groups. On the other hand, it seems likely that Turkey’s leadership also backed subsequent attacks on Syria by DAESH (for example in Deir Ezzor) and the al Nusra-led groups (though they have been busy killing themselves in Idlib, as a result of recriminations over their defeat in Aleppo), in an attempt to strengthen Mr. Erdogan’s hand against Russia, Syria and Iran at the Astana talks. Turkey’s leadership has been forced to the diplomatic table, both by military defeats of its proxy armies on the ground and through the important strategic relationships Turkey maintains with Russia and Iran. The Syrian Government, at this stage, has no real relationship with Turkey’s Government; but some sort of relationship between these neighbors must be rebuilt. Unfortunately for the people of Turkey, the violent recriminations seen in Idlib (it is said that almost 2,000 have been killed by the sectarian infighting) seem likely to keep passing into Turkey, as the terror groups are driven out of Syria.

Click to order

Why do Syrian negotiators in “Astana Talks” want rebels to lay down their arms in exchange for an amnesty deal? Is it legitimate?

A. It is certainly true that many Syrian resent the amnesties given to former Syrian fighters, whom they regard as mercenaries and terrorists. We know that the [Persian] Gulf monarchies and some NATO states have paid them higher salaries than Syrian soldiers, with DAESH fighters on the highest salaries. Many Syrians regard these traitors as no better than their foreign terrorist partners. However the Syrian Government’s practice, at least since 2012, has been to remove as many Syrians as possible from the conflict through a ‘reconciliation’ process, recognizing that they must address a post-war legacy of bitterness. Many thousands have already taken advantage of this process. For the same ‘reconciliation’ reasons the Syrian Army has not ‘carpet bombed’ al Qaeda held areas such as Douma in rural east Damascus. The bloodshed must be minimized. The post war ‘reconciliation’ challenge that the government of President Bashar al Assad must face is similar to, but much greater than, the healing process attempted by his father after the Muslim Brotherhood’s failed insurrection in Hama, back in 1982.

A member of the rebel delegation in “Astana Talks” told AFP on Monday that the group would agree to have Russia serve as a guarantor of the current ceasefire but not Iran; why are they so hostile toward Iran?

A. This seems a combination of the recognition of simple power politics, combined with al Saud style sectarian ideology. The sectarian groups, with little skill in politics or diplomacy, must recognize the military power of Russia, while hoping that Russia will eventually withdraw. Iran, on the other hand, is seen as central to the region and is constantly demonized in pseudo-religious terms by al Saud’s Wahhabi clerics.

There is another factor. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, since 1978, has been implacable in its support of Syria and in the rejection of the destructive role of Washington in the region. The Government of Russia, on the other hand, while maintaining support for international law and the rejection of terrorism, has seemed more diplomatically flexible. Russia constantly refers to the USA – the chief architect of all the Middle East wars and the massive terrorism – as its ‘partner’, in an attempt to resolve wider issues of geo-politics. As part of this approach Moscow has paid perhaps exaggerated attention to armed groups which have very little support within Syria. The latest version of that effort includes the circulation of a text (apparently created with very little Syrian involvement) which appears to suggest some drastic changes to Syria’s constitution. While such ideas (removal of the Presidential system, federalization, removal of the ‘Arab’ status of the Republic) may come to nothing, if and when they subjected to a Syrian vote, the process does seem to be testing the limits of diplomacy. It is not clear to what extent the Syrian Government would accept any such proposals. At worst this might maintain unrealistic expectations on the part of the armed groups and their sponsors; at best it might encourage a face saving retreat, helping resolution of the conflict.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. 

Government propaganda and NGO misinformation have coloured the story of the war on Syria from its inception. Stepping in to set the record straight, Dr. Tim Anderson explores the real beginnings of the conflict, the players behind it, and their agenda in his new book, “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance.”

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran has been “Implacable in the Rejection of Washington’s Destructive Role in Syria”

President Donald Trump suffered a legal blow on Thursday when a federal appeals court refused to reinstate a temporary travel ban he had ordered on people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the Trump administration failed to offer “any evidence” that national security concerns justified the ban he launched with an executive order on Jan. 27.

Shortly after the court issued its 29-page ruling, Trump tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He told reporters his administration ultimately would win the case and dismissed the ruling as “political.”

The Justice Department, which spoke for the government at oral argument on Tuesday, said it was reviewing the decision and considering its options.

The states of Washington and Minnesota challenged the order, which had sparked protests and chaos at US and overseas airports on the weekend after it was issued. The two states argued that Trump’s ban violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination.

The court declined to evaluate those specific claims at this point, but said the government had failed to show that any person from the seven countries had perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

The 9th Circuit ruling, upholding the Feb. 3 decision of US District Judge James Robart, does not resolve the lawsuit, but related only to whether Trump’s order should be suspended while litigation proceeds. The ruling upholds the suspension.

Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order barred entry for citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and imposed a 120-day halt on all refugees, except refugees from Syria who are barred indefinitely.

The three judges said the states had shown that even temporary reinstatement of the ban would cause harm.

In the ruling, they acknowledged the competing public interests of national security and free flow of travel but that the US government had not offered “any evidence” of national security concerns to justify banning the seven countries.

Curbing entry to the United States as a national security measure was a central premise of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, originally proposed as a temporary ban on all Muslims. He has voiced frustration at the legal challenge to his order.

US presidents have in the past claimed sweeping powers to fight terrorism, but individuals, states and civil rights groups challenging the ban said his administration had offered no evidence it answered a threat.

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges were appointees of former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican like Trump.

The government could ask the 9th Circuit to have a larger panel of judges review the decision “en banc,” or appeal directly to the US Supreme Court, which will likely determine the case’s final outcome.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Legal Blow to Donald Trump, US Judges Reject Travel Ban Targeted at Muslims