Statement of European personalities in support of democratic forces
We are seriously concerned about the facts of the systematic pressure on the opposition in Ukraine.
On September 4th, right-wing radicals had the attacked “Inter” TV channel. The channel’s office was burned by nationalists, only the miracle helped to avoid human casualties. Threats of physical violence are coming against journalists and editors of “NewsOne” channel. In fact, all of the independent media are facing direct violence or the threat of violence from nationalist organizations.
We are also very concerned about information that right-wing radicals are controlled and directed by high-rank Ukrainian state officials and leadership of law enforcement authorities. Attacks on the media synchronized with the pressure of the authorities on the opposition leaders.
Alla Alexandrovska, a 68 year old former MP of the Communist Party is still imprisoned in the city of Kharkiv. Оne of the leaders of the parliamentary opposition Vadim Novinsky faced with threats of criminal prosecution soon after he tried to stop attempts of the authorities to interfere in the affairs of the Orthodox Church.
Today, Ukraine needs national reconciliation, not confrontation and witch-hunt.
We call on the leadership of Ukraine unswervingly adhere to the principles of political pluralism, respect for the independence of the media and the rights of the opposition.
First endorsers:
Germany
* Inge Höger, MP Die Linke
* Ulla Jelpke, MP Die Linke
* Alexander Neu, MP Die Linke
* Karin Binder, MP Die Linke
* Jürgen Aust, member leading body Die Linke North Rhine-Westphalia
* Thomas Zmrzly, activist, Duisburg
* Thomas Schmidt, Vice President ELDH European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Right, German section: Association of Democratic Lawyers
* Sylvia Gabelmann, scientific staff for Dr. Alexander S. Neu MB Die Linke
* Harri Grünberg, member leading body Die Linke
* Rainer Rupp, Journalist
* Heinrich Bücker, Coop Anti-War Cafe Berlin
Italy
* Stefano Fassina, former vice finance minister and MP
* Alfredo D’Attorre, MP Sinistra Italiana
* Marco Zanni, MEP for Movimento Cinque Stelle
* Moreno Pasquinelli, Programma 101
Austria
* PD Dr. Gernot Bodner, Assistant Professor at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences BOKU Vienna
* Dr. Leo Gabriel, Scientific director of the Institute for Intercultural Research and Cooperation, Member of the International Council of the World Social Forum, Co-chair of the NGO-Commitee for Sustainable Development of the United Nations, Coordinator of the international initiative www.peaceinsyria.org
* Hermann Dworczak, Austrian Social Forum
* Dr. Dipl. Ing. Mohamed Aburous, chemist and chairman Austrian-Arab Cultural Centre
* Imad Garbaya, Tunisian House
* Wilhelm Langthaler, author and activist
* Dr. Albert F. Reiterer, docent for sociology, retired
* Dr. Werner Murgg, member of Styrian regional parliament
* Martin Mair, Initiative for unemployed
Greece
* Panagiotis Sotiris, member of political secretariat of Popular Unity, Greece
* Yiannis Rachiotis, ELDH European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Right Greek section Alternative Intervention of Athens Lawyers
* Antonios Markopoulos, MP Syriza, chairman foreign policy committee of the Greek parliament
France
* Jacques Nikonoff, candidate of the Party of Deglobalization (Pardem) at the election of the French Republic
“The final objective is the construction of a strong, democratic, law-governed state, and secular society, with a stable, socially-oriented market economy.”
Former Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov.
The recent death of Uzbek president Islam Karimov, who had been in power since the creation of the independent state of Uzbekistan 25 years ago, has brought the little-known Central Asian nation into the spotlight. Whenever the Western media referred to the deceased Uzbek leader, ‘dictator’ and ‘autocrat’ were the usual terms used to describe him.
But distant and unknown lands are often easily misrepresented – particularly when misinterpretation is politically expedient. Few people have any idea of the history of Uzbekistan, nor of the complex social, economic and in particular, geopolitical context that gave rise to Karimov’s long tenure as the country’s leader. It is time to take a closer look at a nation people in the West may be hearing about more often in the near future.
Uzbek Democracy
The first thing to say about Uzbekistan is that it is a democracy, or to be more precise a bourgeois democracy. The country has a bicameral parliamentary system, with the Oliy Majlis or General Assembly and the Senat. There is separation of powers, and the electoral system has several political parties. The Western media establishment have probably told you it is a dictatorship. They are not entirely wrong. Uzbekistan is a dictatorship of those who own the means of production, just like France, the UK, the United States, Russia, China and most other countries in the world – that is what we call a bourgeois democracy.
On the 29th of March 2016, Islam Karimov was elected president for a fourth time with over 90 percent of the national vote. It would be his last term as president, as the constitution of 2002 stipulated that the president could only serve two terms. His previous two terms did not legally count, as they were before the adoption of the constitution in 2002.
The Organisation for Security and Organisation in Europe, the EU’s self-proclaimed ‘democracy’ observatory, has repeatedly dismissed the democratic election process in Uzbekistan. The reason for the EU’s hostility has nothing to do with democracy. The EU is hostile because the Uzbek state prioritises national interests over those of the EU, the United States, and NATO. All three bodies are quick to label any country a ‘dictatorship’ if it refuses to submit obsequiously to the dictates of Western imperialism. Recent parliamentary reforms have given the Uzbek Prime Minister more powers; and Parliament now has the right to nominate the Prime Minister, who can also convene meetings of the cabinet. When one compares the powers of the Uzbek president to those of his French counterpart, it is difficult to understand how he could be called a ‘dictator’. In fact, since the reforms of the Fifth Republic, the French president has more power than most other presidents in the world. Yet no one calls him a dictator.
There are two points to consider here. European elites have perfected a form of pseudo-democracy which the French call ‘alternance’ (alternation in English); one of two or three main political parties gets elected every 5 years, so the face of power changes and it appears that the people have a say in how the country is governed, but in reality all parties represent the same class interests. In Western pseudo-democracy time limits are important and the more the leaders change the better. It is the brief temporality of an elected president which legitimises the pseudo-democracy. Presidents in European countries are usually unpopular, as they betray their own electoral promises. The public have no idea of what it is like to have a genuinely popular president. So, when they see a president such as Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, or Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan getting 90% of the vote, they immediately assume the election must be rigged. This prejudice also prevents international experts from objectively analysing the country in question.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the election monitors from the Community of Independent States called the March 2016 Uzbek presidential elections “free” and “transparent”. They are not incorrect, for the democratic system in Uzbekistan is no less popular, and no less free, than the European or American systems. In fact, it is probably far more democratic. No foreign unelected parliament issues directives to Tashkent about how it manages its fiscal or economic policies, unlike all 27 states in the EU, which are subject to treaties made by bureaucrats that serve the interests of oligarchs at the worker’s expense.
Social Orientation
Since independence, Islam Karimov sought to maintain the country’s self-reliance in the face of a world rapidly deteriorating into corruption and chaos. Contrary to the advice of ‘Washington Consensus’ consultants, Uzbekistan brought finance and key sectors of the economy under state control. The Central Asian nation is rich in gold, silver, coal, oil, lead, zinc, tungsten, and uranium. The results of Uzbekistan’s state-capitalism have been nothing short of dumbfounding. Uzbekistan has seen major economic growth at 7 and 8 percent, a thriving young population and a lowering, rather than the raising of inequalities. Western economists call it the ‘Uzbek growth puzzle’ – they cannot understand how a country which defies western financial ‘sapience’ could be so successful! Since June 2016, the Uzbek government has implemented legislation which requires foreign NGOs to seek approval from the Ministry of Justice before they can receive foreign funds. The government promotes the work of NGOS, provided they are not fronts for foreign powers attempting to subvert the democratic process.
Uzbekistan’s population is growing too, having central Asia’s largest population of 32 million people. Although Uzbekistan’s population growth is only half of what it was during the construction of socialism in the 1930s, the current healthy growth rate makes Uzbekistan one of the most promising countries in Central Asia, with over 60 percent of the nation’s population under the age of 25.
As the declassified US Nation Security Memorandum 200 on worldwide population growth published in 1974 shows, population growth in major developing countries rich in natural resources is likely to create discontent with U.S corporate exploitation of those countries due to the massive unemployment and poverty it will impose on the country’s young population. The Uzbek government is keenly aware of the importance of the country’s youth. A new law on state youth policy was promulgated by the country’s interim president Sharkat Mirziyoyev on the 14th of September and requires that new educational facilities for youth be set up around the country. Education is free in Uzbekistan, from primary to third level. As part of the state’s promotion of family values, 2016 was designated ‘Mother and Child Year’. The state is making astronomical efforts to improve health care for mothers and children. The state also provides favourable loans and in expensive accommodation to young families.
Given the fact that the Uzbek government is critical of Western attitudes towards sexuality and the family (President Karimov said that the West’s promotion of ‘democracy’ and homosexuality were part of the same anti-social agenda) there is no evidence whatsoever that the Uzbek state is engaging in practices which go against its own stated interests. Western Malthusian elites, however, regularly obsess about the ‘danger’ of population growth. It is therefore hardly surprising that they would attribute their own criminal fantasies to their enemies. Stories of Uzbek doctors sterilising female patients have circulated in the Western media, including the BBC.
There is not a shred of evidence to support the far-fetched conspiracy theory worthy of a sci-fi movie. The false rumours have been spread by Uzbekistan pro-Western fifth columnists in the medical profession. They have a vested interest in promoting the privatisation of the country’s health care system, and as the West’s war against Syria has shown, the Hippocratic Oath is not always upheld by medical professionals. Uzbekistan provides free health care to all its children and consigns up to 9.9% of the state budget for that purpose. Americans believe they are free until they read their medical bills and realise they can no longer afford to live in a house. That never happens in the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Pornography and the promotion of violence in media are banned in Uzbekistan. Such laws contrast markedly with the United States where the promotion of violence and death is called ‘cinema’ and the sexual exploitation and reification of women is a key facette of ‘Western freedom’.
Uzbekistan has imposed extensive restrictions on genetically modified crops. GMOs in baby food were banned this year and further restrictions are likely. The development of agriculture is a major objective of the Uzbek government. The country is almost self-sufficient in the production of foodstuff and prices are kept under control by state intervention. Uzbekistan intends to become a big exporter of fruit and vegetables in the future. In 2009, I stayed in an Uzbek farmhouse. I had a chance to sample the products of local agriculture there. The quality of the fruits and vegetables I ate in Uzbekistan surpassed anything I had eaten in Europe.
During collectivisation in the 1930s, millions of poor Uzbek peasants were liberated from centuries of feudal exploitation and famine. For the first time in their history the peasants were the masters of the land. Soviet modernisation during the Stalin period brought great benefits to the toiling masses. Living standards were transformed.
However, the Khrushchevite reforms in the USSR in 1957 brought socialism to an abrupt and tragic end. Henceforth, the USSR was organised along capitalist lines. Moscow’s attitude to Uzbekistan changed too. The smaller republics lost the equal status they had enjoyed during the Stalin era and became satellite states of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RFSFR). Soviet socialism had morphed into Soviet social imperialism. Henceforth, the Uzbek Socialist Soviet Republic (Uzbek SSR) would be encouraged to concentrate on producing cotton for export to the RFSFR. Soviet monoculture was a disaster and Uzbekistan has made great strides in developing its post-Soviet model of agriculture. Like Cuba, post-soviet Uzbekistan is pursuing agricultural polices now on a capitalist basis which it would have pursued on a socialist basis were it not for the Khrushchevite counter-revolution of the 1960s.
Attitudes towards the country’s socialist past are often quite positive in Uzbekistan,( notwithstanding the anti-communist rhetoric of soviet state-capitalist apparatchiks such as Karimov!) When I visited the country in 2009, I was surprised to see that many schools still used old Soviet textbooks with quotations from Lenin on education. However, bourgeois nationalism is the ruling ideology today and most statues of Lenin have been replaced by those honouring Timurlane.
During the Stalin period, Soviet komsomols were sent to Central Asia to teach the peasantry and workers how to read and write in their own language. During this period books in the USSR were published in over 60 languages. Soviet policy required the fostering and promotion of indigenous languages and cultures. Although the USSR promoted ‘scientific atheism’, workers in the Uzbek SSR were busy renovating the country’s magnificent 14th and 15th century mosques. When the USSR was dissolved in 1991, it was the high educational level of the country’s people which enabled Uzbekistan to become the first post-soviet state to achieve pre-1989 levels of GDP. In many respects, the country’s current leadership is not too dissimilar to the Soviet period. It is precisely the social orientation of Uzbek state policy which worries Western corporate interests and their media disinformation agencies. State capitalism has enabled Uzbekistan to reduce some of the inequalities associated with neoliberalism. In 2015 the country’s decile dispersion ratio was reduced to 7.7% from 8.5 in 2010. There is hardly any other state on earth which has managed to reverse, albeit modestly, inequalities.
Lies About Uzbekistan
In order to create the impression that Uzbekistan is a ‘rogue state’ with no functioning legal and administrative system, stories which show that it has in fact such a system, are twisted and turned on their heads so as to indicate the opposite. Take, for example, the recent house arrest of Goulnara Karimova, the daughter of the former president. According to Le Monde, she was arrested due to the fact that she criticised those in power – a gigantic and ludicrous lie! Goulnara was arrested by the state authorities on serious charges of corruption, involving foreign companies in Holland, Denmark and Sweden, who attempted to bribe their way into the lucrative Uzbek telecommunications market. The affair had nothing to do with the president who continued to function. Contrary to Le Monde‘s spin, Goulnara Karimova was arrested, not because she criticised the state but because the state criticised her!
Her alleged role in the corruption case is still pending trial. It is of course, astonishing that a country could have such a strict legal system. In the West, no action is taken when the sons and daughters of ruling elites engage in corrupt business practices. No one batted an eyelid, for example, when former U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden’s son became a major stakeholder in Ukraine’s national gas companyafter the U.S.-backed coup there in 2014. The fact that former British Prime Minister David Cameron’s father had a fortune stacked away off-shore did not become a national crisis in Britain either. The son of millionaire former French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has a long list of corruption charges against him, but no one would have suggested that he was arrested due to a difference of opinion with the French government!
The Andijan Terrorist Insurgency
A major source of lies and disinformation about Uzbekistan concerns the way in which the government dealt with a terrorist insurgency in the South-Eastern city of Andijan in 2005. On the 12th/13th of May 2005, Islamist terrorists raided police barracks and administrative buildings in Andijan in an attempt to spark an Islamist insurgency against the secular state. The terrorists caused the death of up to 200 people and many police were tortured to death. Some, who escaped, had been doused in petrol and were about to be burnt alive.
The support shown for the terrorists by the United States and its European allies proves that the uprising had the support of the Central Intelligence Agency. The U.S. State Department propaganda ‘NGOs’ Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were instrumental in providing disinformation about the terrorist insurgency to the Western media establishment, who then dutifully called the terrorists ‘peaceful protesters’, blaming the violence on the Uzbek police and military. A highly comprehensive study of the events was made by Dr Shiren Akiner of London University, who concluded that the Uzbek government’s version of events was far closer to the truth than the concocted stories of ‘oppositionists’ liberally quoted in the Western press.
The Andijan insurgency was called a ‘massacre’ and was used by the United States to impose sanctions on the country. The techniques of the Andijan insurgency were used again in 2011 by Western intelligence agencies when terrorists stormed a police barracks in Benghazi, Libya, executing several police officers, while the media claimed that they had been shot by Gaddafi’s ‘henchmen’ as they had refused to fire on ‘peaceful protesters’. The Big Lie about the Andijan Massacre is still being used today to demonise Uzbek democracy and justify Western aggression towards the country.
Boiling people to death!
Craig Murray is a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who was dismissed from his post in 2004 by the Foreign Office, reportedly due to accusations of sexual misconduct. Murray has done much to publicise unsubstantiated allegations of prisoners being boiled to death by the Uzbek security forces. None of the allegations have ever been proven but they have become part of the propaganda arsenal used by Western imperialism against the staunchly independent Uzbek state. Murray has since turned into a ‘human rights’ activist and has accused the Uzbek government of holding thousands of ‘political prisoners’. A political prisoner is any crook or misfit stupid enough to believe that they can build a utopia by accepting Western money for the purposes of destabilising the Uzbek state.
There are many of these crooks languishing in Uzbek prisons; takfiri terrorism would have destroyed the country had it not been for carefully coordinated state repression. That is not to say that all prisoners in Uzbekistan are guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. In bourgeois states, justice invariably involves the wealthy locking up the poor. There is no reason to believe things are any different in Uzbekistan. French prisons are teeming with young paupers locked up for months and years awaiting trial, many of whom are innocent. In fact, French prisons are hell on earth, where torture is widely practised. Thousands of prisoners attempt suicide to escape the torment.
British prisons are no better, torture and misconduct by staff are common. The U.S Government openly supports the use of torture against prisoners. So, it is this context of the global problem of prison torture that one must investigate claims made by the Western political establishment against Uzbekistan. Murray has accused the Uzbek state of boiling prisoners to death. The Uzbek government has denied the allegations and have cooperated with international agencies investigating their prisons. Since 2002, the International Red Cross have been visiting Uzbek prisons and not found any evidence of torture. Rather than simply telling the truth, however, they have made vague and unsubstantiated claims that the Uzbek authorities have failed to cooperate with their investigations. Could it be that the Uzbek government’s failure to cooperate is their failure to supply the Red Cross with the proof they need to condemn the country’s treatment of prisoners? After all, the Red Cross, far from being an independent organisation, works very closely with Western governments. In fact, many of the organisation’s managers should be in jail for the embezzlement of billions of dollars in charity money, most notably in the case of Haiti.
One will recall the theatre of the absurd during the Western-backed war against the People’s Democratic Republic of Afghanistan during the 1980s when the government of that country did everything in its power to cooperate with the ‘concerns’ of Amnesty International, even opening many of its prisons to their investigators, while U.S National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the CIA’s terror campaign, sat on Amnesty’s Board of Directors!
Since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leftists criticised US support for unpopular secular dictators as one of the reasons driving Islamist enmity for the United States. It is what I refer to as the ‘Angry Arab’ theory of the war on terror. The theory is popular in Soros-funded pseudo-leftist media outlets. It was the argument used by the Qatari TV station Al Jazeera to create the impression in 2011 that a ‘popular uprising’ was taking place in Tunisia and Egypt against ‘US-backed dictators’. Many leftists based their criticisms of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes on their supposed lack of solidarity with the Palestinians and their allegedly brutal treatment of Islamists. This attitude played right into the hands of the US NGOs who instigated the notorious, right-wing, reactionary ‘Arab Spring’ – a series of people-power coups which wrecked two nation-states who were beginning to navigate away from the US sphere of influence.
The fact that Tunisia under Ben Ali had been praised by the UN for its poverty reduction programme and that Tunisia’s National Solidarity Fund was about to be adopted as a global model, was of no significance to the leftist aficionados of CIA revolutions! Murray has made no criticism of the criminals running Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and the outrageous lies they spread in the service of war and genocide. While many see Murray as a crusader for ‘human rights’ and ‘peace’, his vilification of Uzbekistan serves British interests in the same way his comments as British ambassador that opening the country up to foreign plunder was the solution to the country’s supposed democratic deficit. Murray is lying about Uzbekistan and he has done his best to silence people with superior credentials – honest and forthright academics such as Dr. Shirin Akiner.
The ‘Big Prize’
In his 1998 book ‘The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperative”, Zbigniew Brzezinski calls Central Asia and Russia the ‘grand prize’ coveted by US Imperialism. With its vast mineral resources covering Mendeleev’s entire Periodic Table, its strategic position along the Silk Road, Uzbekistan is a key connecting state in the Russian and Chinese-led project of Eurasian integration. New high-speed trains linking the country’s major cities make Uzbekistan a key partner in Eurasian infrastructural integration.
Uzbekistan has close historical, religious and cultural ties with Iran and relations between the two countries have been good. Iran’s emergence as a regional power will foster further commercial and diplomatic links with Uzbekistan. The Karimov administration showed considerable dexterity in its foreign relations. In order to maintain independence from Russian imperialism, Tashkent turned more towards Beijing. On the 19th of December 2012 Uzbekistan left the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). The decision was taken in accordance with the country’s new foreign policy concept of the ‘Four Nos’: no foreign military bases; no military blocks; no international peacekeeping operations , and no to the mediation of Central Asian conflicts by imperial powers.During the US-backed coup in the Ukraine, Karimov remained neutral.
Uzbekistan has strong economic ties with South Korea, particularly in the automobile market. Uzbekistan intends to emulate South Korean industrial development. Although US/South Korean relations are good, recent moves by South Korea to increase relations with Russia and China have troubled Washington. If the US were to destabilise Uzbekistan, South Korean interests would be greatly affected, pushing that country closer to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and possible steps towards unification with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Recent loan cancelations from Russia have improved relations between Moscow and Tashkent. If the US decides to ‘take out’ the Uzbek state using Takfiri terrorists as foot soldiers, it will have to turn to Moscow. Moreover, Russia shares the same concerns about GMO crops as Uzbekistan. Given Chinese imperialism’s embrace of GMOS, Tashkent needs to maintain independence from Beijing’s increasingly assertive agro-business interests.
US Government foreign policy analysts have acknowledged that Uzbekistan is the key to US strategy in Central Asia. A presidential election is due to be held on the 4th of December this year. The current interim president Shavkat Miroziyoyev is considered by some circles in the West as a ‘reformer’ – in other words, weak, corrupt and likely to be easily bought out by US interests. Whether of not that is true remains to be seen. The head of Uzbekistan’s National Security Service, Rustam Inoyatov, is considered a ‘hard-liner’. The country will need a hard-liner who will continue the Karimov legacy if it is to survive the coming years. There is a significant threat of Takfiri terrorism coming from Tajikistan, where Islamic State terrorists are being trained by the United States. On the very day Islam Karimov’s illness was made public, the border with Tajikistan was closed due to the terrorist threat. Tajik separatism in Samarkand and Bukhara could also be revived if the U.S were to apply the ‘Syrian model’ to Uzbekistan. Although Tadjiks are a small minority, their Persian ancestry and history is quite antagonistic to the Turkic Uzbeks. In 1992, The Independent newspaper wrote:
“Some young Tajiks talk darkly of the need for Samarkand and Bukhara to merge into a greater Tajikistan, an area that would correspond to that ruled by the emirate of Bukhara before Samarkand fell to the Russian empire in 1868.”
Tajik separatism was palpable when I visited Samarkand in 2009, with many people there identifying as Tajiks rather than Uzbeks. The country’s internal divisions could also be instrumentalised by imperial powers. The autonomous regions of Karakalpakstan are rumoured to be considering annexation (Crimea-style to Russia) thought there is no evidence to support these claims. Nevertheless, the US might encourage the region to secede from Uzbekistan while blaming the destabilisation on Russia. Alternatively, a US-instigated coup bringing fascists to power might move Karakalpakstan closer to Moscow. Russia could also use its influence in the region to pressure Tashkent to hold its place on the Eurasian chessboard. Moscow-based geopolitical analyst Andrew Korybko sees a possible ‘kossovisation’ of the gas-rich Karakalpakstan region by the US as a likely component of US-instigated hybrid war.
President Putin described Islam Karimov’s death as “a great loss”. Karimov helped build a modern, prosperous, independent nation in an extremely hostile international environment. Strong and competent leaders are hard to find. If you hear media reports in December of ‘peaceful, pro-democracy protesters’ being repressed by a ‘brutal dictator killing his own people’, you can safely assume that the Uzbek people have elected a popular president. Some philologists say the word Uzbek means ‘independent’. Karimov did a good job protecting the nation’s freedom. Let’s hope his legacy is continued.
If ever needed, the American Legion stands ready to protect our country’s institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who menaced Italy!… The American Legion is fighting every element that threatens our democratic government – Soviets, anarchists, IWW, revolutionary socialists and every other red…. Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States. –– American Legion Commander Alvin Owsley (1923)
We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight. — Gerald MacGuire, former commander of the Connecticut American Legion and coup-plotter in the “Business Plot” to overthrow FDR (1934)
A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. … A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. – William Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, in a letter to FDR (1936)
In December 1933, retired US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor, toured the country on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was urging WWI veterans to organize in order to win the benefits promised to them after the war. Butler apparently believed that the American Legion was controlled by Wall Street financiers, and he believed that veterans were better served by the VFW than the American Legion. In fact, Butler once proclaimed that he had never “known one leader of the American Legion who had never sold them out–and I mean it.”
In November 1934, Butler testified to a congressional subcommittee that representatives of powerful industrial interests and the American Legion were trying to induce him to lead American Legion veterans and other ex-WWI soldiers in a campaign to lead a military coup d’etat against President Roosevelt.
In 1934, American industrialists, such as John D. Rockefeller, the duPont family, J P Morgan and many other ultra-wealthy conservatives (including George W. Bush’s grandfather), plotted to overthrow newly elected president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Those billionaire elites were afraid that FDR was going to implement programs of social uplift, which would eat into their fortunes and political power. FDR was indeed aiming to help out the impoverished multitudes that were suffering from the Wall Street Crash-generated Great Depression, which was caused by the financial schemes perpetrated by them in the roaring 20s.
As always, US financial elites from 80 years ago (as is true of the today’s financial elites from Brazil) met the definition of both sociopathic personality disorder AND fascist. America’s 1934 financial elites were admirers of Hitler and Mussolini, and they were more concerned about their own pocketbooks than about the suffering of others.
To the American coup-plotters, the quickest answer to “the FDR problem” was a military coup, which is probably what the ultra-rich think of first when it looks like their government is threatening to interfere with their preferred unregulated crony capitalist economic system.
The plotters tried to recruit Butler to lead the coup. He was a war hero who was trusted by his soldiers, but he was not a friend of Wall Street. In his short book, “War is a Racket”, Butler wrote:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
The “Business Plot” was to be secretly financed by members of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. A partial list included the following (from http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm).
“Irenee Du Pont – Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League); Grayson Murphy – Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks; William Doyle – Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup; John Davis – Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan; Al Smith – Roosevelt’s bitter political foe from New York. (Smith was a former governor of New York and a co-director of the American Liberty League); John J. Raskob – A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party; Robert Clark – One of Wall Street’s richest bankers and stockbrokers; Gerald MacGuire – Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. (MacGuire was the key recruiter of Butler.)”
Many American millionaires of that era, following the Banker’s War of 1914-1918 (WWI), were not ashamed to admire fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. Fascism provided the stability that favored capitalism over socialism. The most outspoken pro-fascist millionaires were Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, John and Allen Dulles, along with many others with ill-gotten gains who thrived following the Wall Street Crash of 1929. (Besides being millionaires, the two Dulles brothers would later become Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and CIA Director.)
Butler cleverly pretended to go along with the plan at first, deciding to betray it to Congress when the time was right.
When Butler went public in 1934, the plot fell apart. Under oath, he revealed the details of the coup before the House of Representative committee that would later become the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee in the paranoid 1950s. The HUAC was the committee that destroyed the careers of hundreds of innocent Americans in communist witch hunts.
The Wall Street-friendly House committee never called any of the named coup plotters to testify. They whitewashed the final report, actually deleting the names of powerful elites whose reputations “needed to be protected”. Just like today, Wall Street controlled Congress also was in bed with military groups, including Butler’s enemy, the American Legion. None of the guilty were indicted, tried or executed, despite the fact that the treason they were guilty of was a capital crime. And of course, just like today, none of the Wall Street or War Street fraudsters went to jail, and so the corruption goes on and on.
Today’s financial elites in Brazil probably learned a lot from America’s Business Plot. Below is the evidence from Brazilian liberation theologian and truth-teller Leonardo Boff.
Please note the many similarities between the cunning paths that the multinational moneyed elites in both Brazil and America have taken in order to undermine their respective constitutions and protect their own wealth and power at the expense of the 99% – whom they despise. I have minimally edited portions of Boff’s original article.
* * *
Brazil’s “Saddest Day”: The Parliamentary Coup of President Dilma Rousseff
By Leonardo Boff – 26 September 2016
The first half of this combined article was published at the TRANSCEND Media Service:
And it happened in those days that hired assassins disguised as Senators decided to attack an honorable and incorruptible woman who blocked their path to State power. Once in power, they would do what they had always done: take the public goods for their personal enrichment, escape the reach of Justice and carry on with their privileged situation, as always, at the expense of the people they want to exclude and marginalize as chattel.
They took sadistic pleasure in hurting an incorruptible and honorable woman, on the pretext that some of her fiscal practices had been criminal, something that the great majority of legal and economics specialists denied. They staged a farce and betrayed the Constitution.
Removing a President without having proven a crime is a coup. The correct term for it is: a “parliamentary coup.” They were petulant, hypocritically claiming that it made them feel bad, even as they spoke of ushering in “a new spring, the beginning of a new Brazil, prosperous and just.” A lie!
Keeping the Poor Illiterate and Unhealthy by Privatizing Education and Healthcare
The (coup-plotter’s) published plan, “A Bridge to the Future”, is in fact a bridge backwards, because it would eliminate the gains that the workers, women, Blacks, indigenous peoples, the LGBT communities, the poor and the invisible, had won for the first time in our history in terms of social inclusion, better salaries, health, education, labor law, retirement and access to technical and higher education. And what is worse: they want to keep the people illiterate, so that they will be silent and unable to demand their rights and dignity.
Now it is the Market that matters. Someone who wants medical treatment must go to the Market and pay. Whoever wants to go to a University must first go to the Market and pay. Everything will be turned into merchandise to be bought and sold….
At the beginning of the conquest and domination of Mexico, there was “the saddest night”, in 1520, when much of the Spanish army was destroyed. Now we have “the saddest day” when a woman President was unjustly divested of the power she gained through the ballot. In the Senate chambers and in the hallways there is spilled blood. A “political sad night” has fallen on Brazil, stealing hope from those who had climbed out of misery, and who now risk falling back into it.
And those who struggled to consolidate democracy of a social kind and to respect the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot boxes, were betrayed again. This is “the night of the long knives” using weapons raised against an honorable woman and gravely wounding the sovereignty of the people.
Today, August 31, 2016, is a day of sadness. Those who mounted that spectacle, along with their assassin-Senators, will carry the stigma of “golpistas” for the rest of their lives. (Ed note: Golpistas is Spanish for fraudster, scammer, swindler, or one who takes part in a coup d’état.)
Their consciences (if they have any) will haunt them, and their legacies will be destroyed….They smothered truth under the mantel of justice.
They will be in sinister company, the company of those who, years ago, assaulted the State, oppressed the people, tortured many, as they have done now with President Rousseff They have murdered those who sought to restore democracy.
And, at the end of their lives, they will face a greater Judge, who will expose all the injustice they have consciously committed.
The Coups of 1964 and 2016: Coups by the Same Class
The coups of 1964 and 2016 share a common structural nature. Both were class coups, by the holders of money and power: the first used the military, the second used the parliament. …
The assault on the State happened in 1964 and hardened in 1968, with police state repression, brutality, torture and murder. The National Security Regime became the Capitalist Security Regime.
The 2016 coup has been thorough investigated by author Jesse Souza. In his “Radiography of the Coup”, Souza unveils the mechanisms that allowed the moneyed elites to organize the coup, which was carried out in their name by Parliament….
As in the Rest of the World, the Elite 0.05% of Brazil are Undermining the Well-being of the Bottom 99.5%
Souza emphasizes “that all the coups, including the present one, are a fraud well perpetrated by the owners of money, who in fact are the true ‘owners of power’”.
Who makes up that elite class?
The elites are before anything the financial elites, that direct the great banks and investment funds and lead other moneyed sectors such as agribusiness, industry and commerce, supported by the means of the mass media that systematically twists and falsifies the social reality as if it were a ‘devastated land and bankrupt country’ (this is an exaggeration), hiding the corporate interests behind the fraudulent coup.
The engine of the whole process, Souza states again, is the greed of the moneyed elite, who easily appropriate the collective wealth, with other partners such as the ultraconservative means of communication, the juridical-police complex of the State, and a portion of the Supreme Federal Tribunal….
The process of impeachment went to the Senate. The Senate moved to impeach the President for the crime of fiscal responsibility. Principal jurists and economists, besides notable testimonies during the hearings and in the official reports of several institutions, roundly denied the existence of responsibility. The majority of Senators did not even bother to attend the meetings with the highly qualified specialists, because they had already made the decision to impeach….
One of the motives behind the coup was also to put beyond the reach of Justice the 49 senators (out of 81) indicted or implicated in corruption. In this way, with the exception of the courageous defenders of President Rousseff, amoral politicians decided to remove an honest and innocent woman who had been elected president with 54 million votes.
Back in 1964, and now in 2016, be it through the military or through Parliament, the same logic functions: the economic elites and the conservative political caste undertook the theft of a great part of the national treasure. Souza counts 71,440 people, only 0.05% of the population, as undermining the lives and well-being of the large majority of the people who have been reduced to poverty. A large part of Congress is complicit in this coup. In this Congress the same structural intent of guaranteeing the status quo that favors their privileges and earnings.
The coup-plotter’s project, cunningly and misleadingly called “A Bridge to the Future”, is a (neo-)liberalism so shameless as to make one blush. The document reveals the purpose of the coup:
…to minimize the State, reduce salaries, liquidate the policy of revalorization of salaries, slash monies for social programs, privatize state enterprises, exclude obligatory expenses of health and education, reduce to a minimum everything that relates to culture, human rights, women and minorities. The ministry is made up of Whites, and a great part of its members are accused of corruption. There are no women, Blacks, or representatives of the minorities.
We are in the midst of a terrifying retrogressive political-social movement, that worsens inequality, our perverse social wound, and erases the social achievements of the 13 years of the Lula-Dilma governments.
There is massive resistance and opposition in the streets, by strong social groups and intellectuals who do not accept a conspiratorial president who has no credibility. The solution would be general elections, and through popular sovereignty, a new President would be chosen who would truly represent the country.
Leonardo Boff is a Brazilian theologian, ecologist, writer and university professor exponent of Liberation Theology. He is a former friar, member of the Franciscan Order, respected for his advocacy of social causes and environmental issues. Boff is a founding member of the Earthcharter Commission.
Gary 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
Most Americans know very little about Russia, and what they do know is subverted by many decades of U.S. government anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. From 1917 to Dec. 26, 1991, when the USSR imploded, Washington depicted the Soviet Union as an immoral aggressor state seeking to destroy capitalism and freedom in the United States and rule the world. Again, from the early 2000s increasingly until today Russia is depicted as a pariah state and danger to the U.S. and its allies.
During the 10 years from 1991 to about 2001, while taking many bows for its Cold War “victory,” Washington worked with the new Moscow government led by pliable alcoholic President Boris Yeltsin to eliminate the last vestiges of socialism and to in time catapult the new and dependent capitalist state into the U.S. sphere of influence.
In the chaos of the USSR’s abrupt implosion after 74 years, Russia quickly transformed into a desperately poor country of impoverished citizens. Meanwhile oligarchs became fabulously wealthy purchasing much of the infrastructure of the former powerful communist state at absurdly low prices. Foreign owned businesses paid bargain basement prices to exploit the country’s natural resources.
Yeltsin was not popular. Many Russians disagreed with his decision to break apart the Soviet Union and his embrace of neoliberal economics. In early 2003 there was a massive clash between Yeltsin and parliament. He wanted to dismiss the parliament and was supported by the Bill Clinton administration in Washington. In early October 2003 there were mass protests in the street and opposition in parliament to some of his rulings. Yeltsin called out the military and ordered tanks to fire into the parliament building, causing vast destruction and the loss of lives. When the uprising was over after a few days the government said that 187 civilians were killed and 437 wounded, but critics announced that up to 2,000 people had been killed. President Clinton did not criticize the Russian leader’s action. Secretary of State Warren Christopher was soon sent to Moscow to deliver a speech praising Russian democracy.
At the same time Russian public opinion changed from positive toward the United States to largely negative, according to numerous reliable polls. At first the majority believed the U.S would partner with Russia as a friend to reconstruct the new society. But the West, led by Washington, was seen to be dubious and distrusting of the new Russia.
According to Moscow’s Levada Center polling organization:
“The U.S. bombing of Iraq in 1991 was the first major challenge to pro-American sentiment….[By] 1997, half of the Russian population believed that Russia and the West were foreign policy adversaries, while only 30% saw them as allies. At the same time, only a third perceived the U.S. as a threat to world security — something that soon changed dramatically.
”The events of 1998-1999 were critical for Russian attitudes toward the U.S. This period marked a series of events that strained bilateral relations: NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the start of the Second Chechen War and the West’s subsequent criticism of Russia, the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), and the first eastward expansion of NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union…. Surveys showed that 55% of the population believed the U.S. position on the ABM Treaty to be against Russia’s interests. Almost the same percentage (50%) felt that Russia should respond to NATO expansion by increasing its security and defense capacities.”
Relations wavered over the years on the way toward today’s virtual Second Cold War.
Enter Putin
In August 1999 Yeltsin, who was very ill, named Vladimir Putin — a former 17-year mid-ranking officer in the foreign intelligence sector of the Committee for State Security (KGB) — to succeed him. Putin won his own presidential election the next year. He has won every election since then and even his Russian opponents acknowledge that his popularity and approval rating is 80%. A relative multitude of oligarchs still exist but are largely under Putin’s control. They do as he says, they keep their money.
After Putin’s first few years it became obvious to Washington that the new leader had every intention of keeping Russia totally independent of the United States. Worse yet, from the White House point of view, even though he never weakened his support for capitalism, it became clear to American leaders that Putin planned to rebuild Russia into a world power, not a defeated junior state in Europe subject to Washington’s whims and NATO’s muscle. Not only that, but Moscow became a major critic of American unilateral global hegemony and its aggressive foreign/military policies.
The second wave of anti-Russian/anti-Putin propaganda, building on the first, began reaching a peak several years after Putin took office, and certainly continues throughout the U.S. political system today:
President Obama on Putin: “He has a foot very much in the Soviet past.” Actually that isn’t true. Putin today is a culturally conservative capitalist member of the Russian Orthodox Church who has in recent years sharply criticized revolutionary leader V. I. Lenin and the Bolshevik government that took power in 1917. He has stated that Russia’s “destiny was crippled by the totalitarian regime” of Joseph Stalin.
Putin is staunch nationalist — and/or neo-traditionalist — dedicated to restoring Russia to the status of a major power that it enjoyed from the days of Peter the Great (1682–1725) over 300 years including the Soviet era until 1991, just a quarter-century ago. Since that beginning Russia has always been a strong centralized state and Putin is dedicated to its continuation. He conducts what has been termed a managed democracy — combining strong leadership from the chief executive in the Kremlin with rights for the people. The large majorities who vote for him are well aware he makes just about all the important decisions by himself and evidently believe he should continue, as long as they are largely correct for Russia.
U.S. press reports that suggest there is massive opposition to “dictator” Putin are incorrect. Bloomberg columnist Henry Meyer, who frequently reports on Russia, wrote this Sept. 2:
The most popular politician in Russia is among the West’s most reviled: Vladimir Putin. His personal style matches the muscular nationalism he displayed when he annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014 and embarked on a surprise air campaign in Syria the following year. It resonates in a culture that admires strength. His instinctively conservative social views, reflected in an anti-gay law that he passed in defiance of foreign protests, also go down well in a country where liberal values are scarce. Rising oil income in the first part of his rule boosted living standards and allowed Russia to reassert power following a decade of post-Soviet humiliation. Now Putin’s personal appeal is being tested by economic hardship caused by a collapse in oil prices and financial and energy sanctions provoked by the Ukraine intervention. His popularity has hardly been dented. At least so far.
An article by analyst Gordon M. Hahn in the Dec. 25, 2015, Russian Insider titled Sorry to Disappoint You, but Putin Is Not a Conservative, reports: “Putin is a statist in politics, economics, and sociocultural matters. In politics, the state and political stability are almost always to be given preference over individual liberty and freedom when these principles clash. For example, if mass public demonstrations run the risk of devolving into violence or attempts to overthrow the authorities, then those demonstrations will be banned or other wise restricted.
This is not to say there is no freedom of association and speech in Russia. There are political protests held somewhere in Russia everyday, and all points of view can be heard on the state and private airwaves, print media, and Internet.
Most of Putin’s decisions relate to resolving important immediate problems and some of them are unexpected and audacious, such as annexation of Crimea (a big boost to his domestic popularity) and Russia’s entry into the Syrian civil war on the side of the government, much to Washington’s disapproval. (We discuss both these issues at length below.) He doesn’t seem to possess either an extensive long-range plan, or a strongly held ideology.
Since both the U.S. and Russia are now capitalist, there is no longer an ideological content to Washington’s aversion to a stronger Russia. It’s geopolitical, and if Russia agreed to follow U.S. global leadership the problem would dissolve (as it would for the People’s Republic of China were it to bend the knee to Uncle Sam).
Vice President Biden says Putin’s “a dictator.” He’s not. His electoral popularity keeps him in office. There were five candidates for president in March 2012, the last presidential election. Putin, the candidate of the centrist United Russia party, received 45,513,000 votes. The Communist Party candidate got 12,288,624 votes. Mikhail Prokhorov, a self-nominated billionaire oligarch, got 5,680,558. The far right Liberal Democratic Party compiled 4,448,959 votes. The social-democratic A Just Russia Party pulled in 2,755,642. There were reports of ballot stuffing but that could not possibly have determined Putin’s victory given the vote count.
The number and ideological variety of the four viable Russian parties compare quite favorably with a U.S. two-party system composed of the far right Republicans and the center right Democrats in actual contention, while election rules and government/mass media propaganda continually marginalize progressive, left and socialist third parties.
The September Election
In parliamentary elections Sept. 18, Bloomberg News reported:
“President Vladimir Putin secured a crushing victory that gave the United Russia party its biggest-ever majority. Despite Russia’s longest recession in two decades, the pro-Kremlin party will get 343 out of 450 seats in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament…. The [liberal] opposition party… failed to garner a single seat.
Here are the results: United Russia: 54.2%; Communist Party:13.4%; Liberal Democratic Party: 13.2% A Just Russia: 6.2%.
The anti-Putin New York Times couldn’t conceal that United Russia won “without many voting irregularities” (there were very few) but then charged that this evidently free and honest election indicated “Russia appears to have returned full circle to a pseudo-parliament whose only function is to give a semblance of legitimacy to an authoritarian ruler.”
The Carnegie Moscow Center (a subdivision of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington) published an important article Sept. 20 titled “Russia’s Lost Liberals” that pointed out the election results reflect a “gradual decline in support for Russian liberals over two decades….The two main liberal parties, Yabloko and PARNAS, received less than 2% and less than 1%, respectively, of votes cast…..
The current situation is indeed bleak for Russian liberal parties. Only one-third of self-proclaimed liberal party supporters in the 1990s and 2000s still support liberals. Two-thirds have grown disillusioned with liberals and tend to cast their votes for United Russia or the Communist Party. So, who still votes for liberals? Most of their supporters are educated and affluent residents of Moscow. This segment is doing better economically than most Russians. They are more confident in their future and satisfied with their present. They are, on the whole, much happier than the average Russian. Despite these differences, they approve of Putin’s performance as much as the general population.
Many U.S. Politicians Despise Putin
Politicians plus the commercial mass media despise Putin and oppose Russia. Some simply hate him, such as Sen. John McCain, who said he looked into the Russian leader’s eyes and “saw three things — a K and a G and a B.” Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Putin a “stone-cold killer.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who may become president in November, has been persistently critical of Putin and Russia for many years. During her 2008 campaign for the presidency she commented:
“He was a KGB agent. By definition, he doesn’t have a soul.”
In more recent years as Secretary of State, Clinton made her contempt toward Putin very public. During Russia’s parliamentary election of 2011 and the presidential election of 2012 she in effect accused him of rigging the outcome. Putin said at the time that her intervention generated several demonstrations against him in Moscow. He has not forgiven Clinton for this.
Now in her second presidential campaign, Clinton and the leadership of the Democratic Party seem to be launching a new Cold War against Russia. This dangerous escalation of tensions is partly the Clinton campaign’s opportunistic response to a statement by her billionaire businessman opponent Donald Trump to the effect that he wanted to create better relations between the world’s two principal nuclear powers. This was perhaps the one good thing Trump has suggested during his otherwise crudely absurd and racist, sexist, anti-Latino, anti-Muslim, nativist campaign.
Trump’s running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, echoing his leader’s latest praise for the Russian leader, said on CNN in September, “I think it’s inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.” Bur another top Republican, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, told reporters on Sept: 8 “Putin is an aggressor who does not share our interests.”
The Clinton forces will continue through the campaign to excoriate Trump as a Russian dupe who will work with Moscow against U.S. interests. Her campaign manager Robby Mooch has gone to such lengths as this in characterizing the Republican contender: “Trump is just a puppet of the Kremlin.” “We need Donald Trump to explain to us the extent to which the hand of the Kremlin is at the core of his campaign.” “Trump has deep financial ties that potentially reach into the Kremlin.”
Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine has joined Clinton in criticizing Trump, saying Sept. 6: “We are entitled to get the information to get to the bottom of this cozy bromance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.”
Clinton insists that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee’s computers and passed the contents of 20,000 E-mails to WikiLeaks for worldwide dissemination. Some of the mail proved that the Democratic Committee worked to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination. At best the U.S government and FBI have expressed “high confidence” that Russia was involved, but does not maintain they actually did it and offers no proof despite possessing the most sophisticated and widespread surveillance apparatus in the world. Interestingly, the New York Times reported Sept. 8 “The FBI is investigating whether Russia hacked into [DNC] computer systems,” weeks after the initial allegations were made and they evidently are still at it.
The same Times article reported “Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter lashed out at Russia on Sept. 7, accusing the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of demonstrating a ‘clear ambition to erode’ international order and warning Russia to stay out of the American election…. Carter used language that evoked a time before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when leaders in Washington and Moscow were entrenched global adversaries.”
CNN reported Democrats asked the FBI Aug. 30 to investigate whether Trump’s campaign had any “overt and covert” connection to cyberattacks alleged to be conducted by Russian government hackers. The letter from the top ranking Democrats on the Oversight, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees follow a similar missive from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who also asked the FBI to look into any possible link between the campaign and Russian meddling in the U.S. election.
A measure of Trump-Russia reality was printed in the Sept. 9 issue of The Economist: “As with many of Mr. Trump’s proposals, it is unclear how committed he is to his pronouncements on Russia policy, if at all…. Foreign-policy professionals in Moscow understand the risks of Mr. Trump’s unpredictability. ‘If Trump wins, it’s an equation where everything is unknown. ‘There, x times y equals z,’ says Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Russian senate’s foreign-affairs committee. While Mrs. Clinton is seen as fiercely anti-Russian, she is a familiar figure, and even commands grudging respect. ‘As a rule, it is easier to deal with experienced professionals,’ wrote Igor Ivanov, a former foreign minister, in a recent column in Rossiskaya Gazyeta, a government newspaper.”
To all of this Putin has replied: “I would like to work with a person who can make responsible decisions and implement any agreements that we reach.” Asked who he would prefer to have at the end of the hotline when he’s trying to stabilize a threatening geopolitical situation, he responded: “Their last name doesn’t matter.” In terms of the alleged computer hacking, Putin said, “We definitely don’t do such things at a state level.” He told Bloomberg News that it was “nonsense” to suggest the Kremlin backed Trump. He also criticized both candidates for so brutally attacking each other.” He continued: “I don’t think they’re setting the best example…. But that’s the political culture of the United States. You have to take it as you find it.”
The Russian leader would be derelict if he paid no attention to a candidate of one of the two U.S. parties who didn’t hold an angry grudge against him and his country and seems to abjure the possibility of a war. This hardly means Putin is rooting for Trump or is waiting breathlessly to plow through another batch of DNC correspondence. Some Russian citizens hope Trump wins because they think he won’t start a war against them. They know little to nothing about his domestic program.
According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now Aug. 31: “Any of us who grew up in politics or came of age as an American in the ’60s or the ’70s or the ’80s, or even the ’90s, knows that central to American political discourse has always been trying to tie your political opponents to Russia, to demonizing the Kremlin as the ultimate evil and then trying to insinuate that your political adversaries are somehow secretly sympathetic to or even controlled by Russian leaders and Kremlin operatives…. This was typically a Republican tactic used against Democrats.” Times seem to have changed.
Clinton’s nationalist political attack is not only exploiting Trump’s Putin “connection,” but is determined to make him appear unpatriotic because he recently said he disliked the expression “American Exceptionalism.” Speaking Aug. 31 to the ultra-patriotic American Legion convention in Cincinnati, Clinton — while not mentioning her opponent’s name — declared: “If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired my every step of the way, it is this: The United States is an exceptional nation…. Part of what makes America an exceptional nation is that we are also an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation. People all over the world look to us and follow our lead…. When we say America is exceptional, it doesn’t mean that people from other places don’t feel deep national pride, just like we do. It means that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity.”
If elected in November Clinton will unquestionably assume a tougher political and military stance toward Russia (and China as well). This would have happened anyway since the principal aspect of her foreign/military policy is to maintain and strengthen U.S. global hegemony, but now that most Democrats probably believe Moscow is seriously seeking to interfere in American elections, and hacking key computers in the process, it will be easier.
However, it is imperative to remember that there has not been a Washington administration since 1917 — with the exception of the Yeltsin years — that has not desired to bring about regime change in Russia as it has done or is doing in many countries, most recently in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. The White House does not want a Kremlin that opposes what it seeks or that will not respect its self-appointed role of world leader. But Putin has rebuilt Russia into a world power, and it is doubtful U.S anger and criticism will translate into violence, at least in the foreseeable future.
Putin Responds
Contrary to Clinton and nearly all other U.S. politicians, the Russian leader evidences a broad and deep understanding of the relationship between the two countries. Business Insider reported Jan. 10: “Putin told the German daily newspaper BILD that he believes Russia’s deteriorating relationship with the West was the result of many ‘mistakes’ made by NATO, the U.S. and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ‘We have done everything wrong, he said…. From the beginning, we failed to overcome Europe’s division. Twenty-five years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, but invisible walls were moved to the East of Europe. This has led to mutual misunderstandings and assignments of guilt. They are the cause of all crises ever since,’ he said.
“NATO embarked on an ‘expansion to the east,’ allowing the post-Soviet Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — to join the organization. This resulted from the U.S. desire for ‘complete victory over the Soviet Union’ after the Cold War ended in 1991,’ Putin claimed.” It is rarely mentioned in the U.S. but n 1990 Washington promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev — in return for the reunification of Germany — that it would not seek to recruit NATO membership from the impending dissolution of the Warsaw Pact or from the various ex-republics. The U.S. broke that promise right after the USSR imploded two years later and began the process, continuing today, of positioning NATO troops ever closer to the Russian border.
Putin, however, conceded that Russia has made its own mistakes since the end of the Cold War. “He told BILDd: ‘We were too late…. If we had presented our national interests more clearly from the beginning, the world would still be in balance today. After the demise of the Soviet Union, we had many problems of our own for which no one was responsible but ourselves: the economic downfall, the collapse of the welfare system, the separatism, and of course the terror attacks that shook our country…. In this respect, we do not have to look for guilty parties abroad.'”
The U.S., Russia and the War in Syria
Washington has not explained all its reasons for deeply involving the U.S. in the Syrian civil war for the last five years. Many Americans are unaware of the leading role of jihadists on the rebel side that their government supports. People know that over 400,000 Syrians have been killed so far and that millions have become refugees, but few realize this brutal war could have been prevented if the U.S. has opposed the plan by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad for geopolitical and religious reasons. The notion that they — and the U.S. — were motivated by a desire to impose democracy in Damascus is naïve. This is not to deny the legitimacy of the peaceful protests that began the conflict in northern Syria and were crushed, but to criticize the later mass intervention by the U.S. and its cohorts to support the jihadists in launching a horrendous and seemingly unending civil war.
Both the U.S. and Russia are involved on the same side in the war in Syria against the Islamic State (IS) and Jabhat al-Nusra (the al-Qaeda franchise that recently changed its name to Abhat Fatah al-Sham, which means “Conquest of Syria Front”). But they are sharply divided on the most important aspect of the conflict. Washington seeks the military overthrow of the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad while Moscow defends Assad with air power and other support for the Syrian Arab Army (SRA).
This is a complex contradiction that causes problems between the two powers. But Obama — who originally said Russia’s entry into the war would result in a “quagmire” for Moscow — now seems to understand the U.S. needs Russia if it is ever going to extricate itself from what appears to be endless Middle East wars that are distracting the White House from its main goal of “containing” China. For its part, one reason Russia is fighting in the region is to demonstrate rather convincingly that it is a world power once again.
The U.S. began bombing Islamic State positions in Syria in September 2014. Russia began bombing IS exactly a year later in 2015, completely surprising Obama, who did not expect or want Russia to take part at that time. Russia has also been bombing some American-backed jihadi groups that are fighting to destroy Assad. Some of these groups, to make this alignment entirely confusing, occasionally collaborate with Jabhat al-Nusra — an organization the U.S. is now bombing along with Russia.
Moscow entered to support the government and to eliminate as many jihadists as possible, not least to prevent them from joining thousands of them already in Russia. The U.S. says it is fighting to free the Syrian people from a dictatorship, but there are four other powerful reasons it won’t mention (see below).
Russia’s intervention has benefitted Syria greatly. The SRA was in a weakened condition after half its troops were killed or wounded in over two years of war against IS, al-Nusra and scores of Sunni fundamentalist jihadi fighting groups plus a small secular contingent called the Free Syria Army. The SRA, supported by Russian and Syrian government aircraft has been on the offensive for the last several months.
The various rebels still occupy about half of Syria in a ghastly war that has taken some 400,000 lives.
The war began as a series of largely civilian protests in the northern part of the country in March 2011 against the Assad government in Damascus, which responded with substantial military force. The U.S. supported the demand that Assad step down from the beginning. In August of that year, President Obama imposed deep sanctions on Syria and created an anti-Assad alliance including leaders of Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the European Union that demanded Assad’s ouster. (Washington in time also tried to set up an exile government that it would control, but infighting and opposition from Iraqis living in their country rejected the idea.)
The six Sunni Muslim Arab nations of the Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League, soon began organizing for the overthrow of Assad. Other Sunni states, including NATO member Turkey, eventually associated themselves with the struggle. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar in particular were soon supplying tens of thousands of jihadists with weapons, salaries and other needs. The U.S. sent military supplies and money.
Washington maintains it supports the overthrow of Assad because he is a dictator who deprives his people of freedom. The real reasons, however, are rarely mentioned. Here are a few:
1. For the Saudis and their supporters (such as the U.S.) it is a war waged by Islam’s Sunni majority against the Shi’ite minority that constitutes 10% of this religion’s world population of 1.6 billion adherents. They want to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad who is a member of the Alawite Muslim branch of the Shi’ite faction governing a Sunni-majority country. The intention is to replace him with a follower of Saudi Arabia’s puritanical Wahhabism form of Sunni Islam, if possible. The U.S seeks a mainstream Sunni leader and probably would prevail. Washington further intends to exercise considerable influence over a new administration. Ironically many millions of Syrian Sunnis support Assad as do the great majority of SRA soldiers, as well as several minorities in addition to the Alawites, including Christians.
2. Another U.S.-Saudi reason for ousting Assad is to eliminate Syria as an ally of Shi’ite Iran. By toppling the secular Sunni government of President Saddam Hussein in 2003, the G.W. Bush administration destroyed Iran’s main enemy. Regime change in Syria, depriving Iran of its major regional ally, would partially compensate for Bush’s blunder. It will also serve Israel’s interests, which are totally anti-Iranian. (Iranian officers and troops plus the Shi’ite militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon are fighting against Islamaic state in Iraq and Syria, and against all the jihadists in Syria in defense of the Assad regime.)
Further, it must be recalled as an example of Washington’s ruinous participation in Middle Eastern affairs, that Iraq launched a vicious war against Iran in 1980 that lasted until 1988 and was supported by Washington which supplied Iraq with several billion dollars worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, and Special Operations training, according to Wikipedia. Washington did so to in retaliation for 1979 overthrow of the U.S. puppet monarchy in Iran by the Islamic Revolution that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. Up to a million people died in the Iraq-Iran war. Three years later the U.S. was bombing Iraq. Twelve years after that it was bombing Iraq again, resuming in 2014 up to now.
3. Washington has an additional reason for removing Assad. This would also liquidate Russia’s only outpost in the Middle East— a geopolitical step forward for the U.S. The USSR and Syria have had warm relations since 1944. The Soviet Union supported Syria’s 1944-46 fight for independence from colonial France. In return the Syrian government leased to Russia the naval base in the Mediterranean port city of Tartus in 1971. Moscow has used the base for docking, repair and replenishment ever since. Russia also uses Khmeimim airport in Syria, which was built just before the start of its air war in September 2015. It is noteworthy that Syria and the Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1980 that continues to this day and explains part of Russia’s motivation to defend the regime against another Obama administration regime change operation in the Middle East in addition to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
4. Lastly, according to a Sept. 21 analysis by Gareth Porter in Truthout:
“The U.S. decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the U.S. permanent war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control U.S. access to the key American military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, CIA, State Department and the Obama White House were concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the U.S. military posture in the region. After all, those military bases are what allow the United States to play at the role of hegemonic power in the Middle East, despite the disasters that have accompanied that role.”
U.S.-Russian joint work in Syria continues despite misadventures and mutual accusations. Just before the seven-day truce both sides called in September to deliver food and supplies to residents of rebel-held cities, the U.S. Air Force bombed the Syrian Arab Army encampment in Deir el-Zour, killing 62 soldiers and wounding over 100. This allowed the Islamic State to rush in and take over the area. The U.S apologized for it’s “mistake,” although information about the troops was available.
Days later on Sept. 19, a night attack on a relief convoy destroyed 18 of 30 trucks carrying provisions for civilians in a rebel-held section of Aleppo. Some 20 civilians and one aid worker were killed. The U.S. blamed Russia, alleging two of its planes bombed the convoy. Russia denied the charge, which they deemed ludicrous since they had just days before agreed to call for the cease-fire. The UN refused to back up the American accusation. The same goes for the Red Crescent, which also had representatives at the scene. Russia had two arguments against the U.S. accusation: First, the trucks burned rather than being blown apart by bombs. Second, there were no bomb craters on the ground.
It is still a mystery but new talks soon began between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
U.S.-Russia Relations worsen
Despite increasing distrust between the U.S. and Russia since Putin assumed office, it wasn’t until Obama’s second term in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea that U.S. antagonism boiled over. Washington has denounced Moscow ever since, imposing severe sanctions that have contributed mightily to its current economic difficulties. Russia Behind the Headlines reported that On Sept. 1, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed new sanctions on a range of Russian companies and individuals, including subsidiaries of energy giant Gazprom; the contractor building the bridge linking Crimea to mainland Russia across the Kerch Strait and several major shipyards.
Since the annexation of Crimea, which I will discuss below, Washington and NATO have been suggesting Russia may now invade NATO member countries in Europe such as Poland. This is a deception to justify moving troops and equipment closer to the Russian border, supplying more weapons to allies in the region and prolonging sanctions. It is preposterous to think Moscow entertains the suicidal notion of attacking a NATO country.
Putin addressed the matter of engaging in a European war during a Sept. 1 interview conducted by Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait, who asked if Russia intended to use force elsewhere in the region. The interview was conducted at the Far East Economic Forum held in Vladivostok.
Here is Putin’s response: “I think all sober-minded people who really are involved in politics understand that the idea of a Russian threat to, for example, the Baltics is complete madness. Are we really about to fight NATO? How many people live in NATO? About 600 million, correct? There are 146 million in Russia. Yes, we’re the biggest nuclear power. But do you really think that we’re about to conquer the Baltics using nuclear weapons? What is this madness? That’s the first point, but by no means the main point.
The main point is something completely different. We have a very rich political experience, which consists of our being deeply convinced that you cannot do anything against the will of the people. Nothing against the will of the people can be done. And some of our partners don’t appear to understand this. When they remember Crimea, they try not to notice that the will of the people living in Crimea — where 70% of them are ethnic Russians and the rest speak Russian as if it’s their native language—was to join Russia. Those in the West simply try not to see this….
As far as expanding our zone of influence is concerned, it took me nine hours to fly to Vladivostok from Moscow. This is about the same from Moscow to New York, through all of Eastern and Western Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. Do you think we need to expand something?
Viktor Yanukovich Becomes U.S. Target for Regime Change
Just last month, Michael Carpenter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with responsibility for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, told Voice of America: “Russia, in its invasion and illegal attempted occupation and annexation of Crimea, broke essentially every rule in the basic fundament of the international world order, from sovereignty, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders.”
This U.S. version of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 is one sided because it refuses to acknowledge that the deed was directly in retaliation for a major regime change operation in Ukraine supported by the Obama administration. A democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich — who was basically friendly to neighboring Russia — was violently ousted and replaced by an appointed anti-Russian administration economically dependent upon the United States and the European Union. The purpose was to compromise Russia’s revival as a regional power critical of U.S. policies.
As I wrote at the time, “Russia has taught the United States a stern and embarrassing lesson in Ukraine as a riposte to Washington-backed regime change in Kiev, the capital. Moscow in effect warned a thoroughly shocked Washington, ‘So far, but no further. President Vladimir Putin then annexed Crimea. Nothing quite like this move on the geopolitical chessboard has happened since the U.S. became the world’s single superpower over two decades ago.”
Ukraine became attached to the Russian Empire in 1793 after Poland lost a large portion of the Ukrainian territory it ruled at the time . The empire ruled another part of Ukraine since 1667. When the Soviet Union was formed, Ukraine became one of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics (including the Russian Federation) under the Government of the Soviet Union, which was located in Moscow. (“Soviet” is a Russian term that means an elected local, district, or national council.) When Ukraine entered the USSR it did so without Crimea, which remained part of Russia — including its crucially important Black Sea Navy base. Of all the republics, Ukraine seemed most favored by Russia due to their long shared history, which goes back hundreds of years before it was incorporated into the czarist empire.
Constituent Soviet republics became independent as the USSR was breaking up in the early 1990s. Ukraine declared itself independent in August 1991, four months before the Soviet Union was formally dissolved. The White House sought to maneuver Ukraine from Russia’s historic orbit to that of the U.S. and European Union, hoping to enlist Ukraine into NATO and moving its military bloc up to the Russian border.
The U.S. thought it achieved its objective when it supported Ukraine’s so-called “Orange Revolution” election in December 2004 that brought pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko to the presidency. Relations between Ukraine and Russia are said to have “hit rock bottom” during his troubled reign. Yushchenko sought to integrate Ukraine into the EU and NATO. Political rivalries, infighting and treachery in a basically oligarch-controlled system prevented Yushchenko from achieving his goal, much to Washington’s great disappointment.
Viktor Yanukovich, who was defeated by Yushchenko in 2004, won the 2010 presidential election. He and his Party of Regions were considered to have good relations with their Russian neighbor. A few months later parliament, with the president’s backing, ratified an agreement to extend Russia’s lease on the Black Sea fleet base at Sevastopol in Crimea for 25 years. It also voted to abandon the previous government’s aspirations to join NATO.
The George W. Bush administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia were becoming members of NATO. Moscow announced it would not tolerate any such maneuver, and briefly invaded Georgia on the side of separatist South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia has become members.
In 2009, according to the prestigious German daily Der Spiegel, the EU proposed an “eastern partnership” with Ukraine as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus — former members of the USSR. The EU offered cooperation, free trade and financial contributions in exchange for democratic reforms…. The planned partnership agreements were intended to facilitate visa-free travel, reduce tariffs and introduce European norms. The only thing that was not offered was EU membership.
The EU’s other goal, even though it was not as openly expressed, was to limit Russia’s influence and define how far Europe extends into the east. For Russia, the struggle to win over Ukraine was not only about maintaining its geopolitical influence, but also about having control over a region that was the nucleus of the Russian empire a millennium ago. The word Ukraine translates as ‘border country,’ and many feel the capital Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities. This helped create Cold War-style grappling between Moscow and Brussels [the EU capital].
This went on for years. Some former Soviet countries rejected the offer fairly quickly but Ukraine took its time. Associating with Europe and the U.S. was particularly popular in western Ukraine but highly unpopular in the east where millions of Russian speakers lived, many of whom were born in Russia. Also, the large right wing in west Ukraine, including fascists and neo-Nazis, hated Russia for its communist past and the fact that the Russian language was on an equal par with Ukrainian in their country.
The Coup d’état That Ousted Yanukovich
After years of talks the EU was under the impression Yanukovich finally was going to sign the 900-page agreement for close economic and political ties to Europe, and thus to Washington at Russia’s expense. The proposed date for this was Nov. 29, 2013, in a ceremonial summit meeting in Lithuania.
On Nov. 9, 2013, however, after years of applying considerable pressure and offering many promises to the government in Kiev, Putin secretly meet with President Yanukovich near Moscow at a military airport, and the tide began to turn, not least because Ukraine was nearly insolvent. Der Spiegel reported: “In the end, the Russian president seems to have promised his Ukrainian counterpart several billion euros in the form of subsidies, debt forgiveness and duty-free imports. The EU, for its part, had offered Ukraine loans worth 10 million euros ($827 million), which it had increased at the last moment, along with the vague prospect of a 1 billion euro loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Russia’s was a far more comprehensive offer and Yanukovich went for it.
After a public announcement that the government had signed with Russia, not the EU, all hell broke out for three months, resulting in demonstrations and riots in the streets of Kiev, the overthrow of the Yanukovich government, the vote by 97% of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and become part of Russia, and fighting between the Ukrainian military and pro-Russian militants in two regions near the border.
The entire situation could have been avoided. According to scholar, author and Russia expert Stephen Cohen, interviewed on Democracy Now at the time: “The European Union in November told the government of Ukraine, ‘If you want to sign an economic relationship with us, you cannot sign one with Russia.’ Putin asked, ‘Why not? Why don’t the three of us have an arrangement? We’ll help Ukraine. The West will help Ukraine.'” Such a deal would have benefitted Ukraine enormously.
The EU and U.S. refused because their objective was to control Ukraine for themselves and substantially weaken Russia by removing the most important country in its sphere of interest — economically, politically, and as a buffer zone through which Russia has been invaded at times in history. A corollary objective was still to move NATO directly up to the Russian border.
Cthe announcement up to100,000 people demonstrated opposition to the pact in Kiev’s Maidan Square. Breakaway right wing groups fought with police and one such gang broke into city Hall. On Dec. 8 a reported 200,000 protested in Maidan.
By now it was becoming evident that the conservative forces in opposition to Yanukovich were losing control of the demonstrations as extreme right wing organizations began setting up a battlefield in the Maidan. By mid-January Kiev appeared under siege and anti-government demonstrators expanded their protests to several cities in western Ukraine, storming and occupying government offices. Parliament then passed anti-protest laws, but they were ineffective. Prime Minister Mykola Azarov resigned near the end of January. Parliament rescinded the new laws and passed legislation dropping all charges against arrested protesters if they leave government buildings. In mid-February all 234 arrested demonstrators were released and the office occupations ended.
The real trouble began a couple of days later. Some 25,000 people were in the square when gunfire broke out, killing 11demonstrators and seven police. Hundreds were wounded. It has not been established how it began. Feb. 20 was the worst day of violence when 88 people were killed. The police were largely blamed although there were reports that provocateurs fired at both sides to create even stronger opposition to the government. The next day Yanukovich signed a substantial power sharing deal with opposition leaders, but protests, led by the extreme right, continued and government offices were again occupied. On Feb. 22, as protests continued, Yanukovich ‘fled for his life,’ ending up hours later in Russia.”
The coup was completed Feb. 23 when Parliament, including Yanukovich’s Party of the Regions, quickly capitulated to reality and oligarch instructions and voted 328-0 to impeach the absent president. They then elected Obama’s choice (which I discuss below), Arseniy Yatseniuk, interim Prime Minister. Virtually the entire U.S. mass media did not question or critically examine the implications of the White House honoring an unelected prime minister who just replaced a democratically elected president who was overthrown by mass demonstrations that included fascists, some of whom are ending up in the new government.
Washington’s role in the overthrow of Yanukovich was decisive. Neoconservative anti-Russia Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland — who revealed that over the years the U.S. spent over $5 billion to pull Kiev away from Moscow — became the point person on the ground during the tumultuous antigovernment demonstrations. She not only was photographed at the time with leading opponents of the regime, including fascists and neo-Nazis, but also was pictured laughing as she handed out pastries to some of the protesters, urging them on. She worked together with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
A phone call between the two on Jan. 28, 2014, nearly a month before the overthrow, was secretly recorded by a party or parties unknown and appeared on YouTube causing a sensation. While still on the phone they agreed that the post-coup prime minister should be Arseniy Yatsenyuk an America-friendly banker, lawyer and politician. As noted, he was named to that position after the president fled the country. Nuland and her cohort agreed with others that billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko should become a candidate for the presidency, which he won in late May. He vowed never to recognize Russia’s “occupation of Crimea.” Secretary of State John Kerry was a frequent visitor to Kiev during the months of anti-government protests, dashing here and there and making pompous pronouncements on behalf of President Obama.
Obama nominated Nuland and Pyatt to their positions in Ukraine about two months before the uprising began — either to work with Yanukovich when he selects the EU or — as it turned out — with the inevitable opposition should he side with Russia. (News analyst Philip Giraldi wrote in the American Conservative May 19: ” Where will Victoria Nuland be after January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton’s protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly admired by hardline Republicans. (She earlier was an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.) This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary of state or maybe even national-security adviser.” On May 19, Obama named Pyatt ambassador to Greece, where his experiences in Ukraine may someday stand him and imperialism in good stead.
According to the calculations of progressive author William Blum, there have been 57 instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the end of World War II in 1945. Ukraine is number 57. In a Dec 19, 2014, interview with the Russian magazine Kommersant, George Friedman — the founder and CEO of Stratfor, the commercial intelligence network — said this: “Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history…. About three years ago, in one of my books, I predicted that as soon as Russia starts to increase its power and demonstrate it, a crisis would occur in Ukraine.” Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his book The Grand Chessboard, “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire” — as Washington well knows.
Washington participated in and to an important extent led the coup, but there was hardly the whisper of an outcry within the U.S. or among America’s many obedient allies. Virtually the entire U.S. mass media did not question or critically examine the implications of the White House honoring an unelected “replacement” prime minister. But the White House has been condemning, sanctioning, and militarily threatening the Kremlin ever since President Putin complied with the subsequent verdict of a Crimean popular plebiscite a month later seeking to depart from the jurisdiction of Kiev and to be readmitted to that of Moscow.
Crimeans Vote for Russian Citizenship
For reasons that never have been convincingly explained, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea, where virtually the entire population had Russian citizenship, to the neighboring Soviet Republic of Ukraine in 1954.
The Crimea Russians were not consulted about the decision and they complained, but got nowhere. At least they remained in the Soviet Union, as close to each other as New York to New Jersey. Forty years later in 1994, after the USSR imploded, the people of Crimea held their first referendum on separation from Ukraine and rejoining Russia — and 80% voted for independence. Nothing came of it. Twenty years passed before the second referendum in 2014, and Crimea returned to Russia.
Without firing a shot, Moscow’s response to regime change was so adept and nonviolent it could have been choreographed by the Bolshoi. On March 11, the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea adopted a declaration of independence from Ukraine. Five days later a peaceful democratic and honest referendum was conducted in the region and 96.77% voted to return to Russia. The next day President Vladimir Putin, with overwhelming backing from the Russian people and parliament, annexed the territory.
Our best guess about the initial transfer is that Khrushchev sought to increase the number of pro-Soviet inhabitants since Ukraine at the time contained a large right wing population, many thousands of whom fought on the German side against the Soviet Union in World War II. According to The Week “At least 5.3 million Ukrainians died during the war — about one sixth of the population. About 2.25 million of those killed were Jews, targeted by both the Nazis and some Ukrainian collaborators.” Many of Ukraine’s younger fascists today look up to those earlier right wing fighters as heroes.
About 25% of Ukraine’s 46 million people claimed Russian as their mother tongue. A great many of them resided in the Russian-speaking separatist majorities in the eastern Ukraine administrative districts of Donetsk and Luhansk along the Russian border. The Putin government continues to support their independence struggle, which was launched after the coup.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine has officially declared war, but fighting between the separatists and Ukraine forces has resulted in the deaths of nearly 10,000 people, including soldiers, civilians and members of armed groups on both sides, since April 2014. All combatants agreed to measures lowering tensions in February 2015 in what is called the Minsk 2 Agreement, but fighting still continues and other aspects of the accord remain unfulfilled. The Kiev government says 1.8 million people are internally displaced and that almost 30 % are children and 59% are pensioners.
The exception to Khrushchev’s jurisdictional territorial transfer was the sprawling Russian Black Sea Fleet base, which has been in continuous use by the Russian Empire and the USSR since 1783, and the nearby city of Sevastopol. The facility is a geopolitical treasure because it is Russia’s only significant warm water port. Obviously, Moscow was worried that a U.S.-installed regime in Kiev might refuse to renew Russia’s lease on the base and its environs. (As an aside, Russia’s main warm water port outside its own territory is in the Mediterranean Sea at Tartus in Syria. From the Russian point of view, the U.S has endangered both strategic assets).
The United States and all its European and other allies know all these facts about the relationship between the coup and Crimea, but all they emphasize to the public is “Russian Aggression.”
The Problem of Consolidating Russian Society
Stratfor in 2012 offered some insights into an historic Russian problem that also cropped up after the demise of the Soviet Union: “On Aug. 11 Putin met with regional ombudsmen — intermediaries between the government and the people over social welfare, human rights, ethnic identity and overall relations. At the meeting, Putin said the ombudsmen should think of ways to help consolidate Russian society.
What Putin was touching on is something that has plagued Russia for most of its history: the fact that it is an incredibly large, diverse and socially unstable country. Currently, Russia has more than 185 different ethnic groups, 21 national republics and 85 regional subjects that span nine time zones. Every Russian leader — be they Czarist, Soviet or post-Soviet — has struggled to consolidate this disparate population of 143,500,000 today. The Czars divided the peoples of the Russian Empire into various subjects to try to keep them segregated, but this led to constant uprisings among specific regional subjects against the czars.
The Soviet strategy was to unite all citizens by referring to them as “Soviets,” creating an identity that would supersede divisions created by ethnicity, religion and political ideology. The Soviet strategy was so successful that it not only united the peoples of Russia, but also those in the surrounding 14 republics that made up the Soviet Union. The “Soviet” classification tied together peoples throughout the union — from Tajik villages to Baltic cities to the Caucasus Mountains and at every point in between. The Soviet identity was united in language, literature, institutions, culture and ideology….
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia plunged into a deep identity crisis. Yes, the peoples of Russia knew they were technically citizens of the new Russian Federation (even if they were not ethnically Russian), but there was no coherent idea of what that actually meant. Russia was undergoing economic, political, financial and social chaos. There was nothing uniting the peoples; they were forced to fight just to survive.
This changed when Putin was elected president in 2000; he started to consolidate the Russian peoples under his leadership. Putin was heavy-handed in his tactics. He united the majority of the peoples under one political party, he clamped down on dissidence — political or ethnic — and he purged foreign economic and social influence. Under Putin’s leadership the country began to not only stabilize but to thrive. Through this consolidation process, a mythos began to take root around Putin and his leadership. Many critics compared the myth of Putin to that of a Russian cult leader. But for most Russians the important part was that under Putin, Russia was a strong, globally important country once again.
Following is a somewhat related analysis from an article by Thomas Graham, managing director at Kissinger Associates, that he published Aug. 24 in The National Interest titled “The Sources of Russian Conduct.”: “Like his predecessors… Putin] is adamant that Russia — as a political and spiritual community — cannot survive other than as a great power. His authority is reinforced by an elite that, save for a small minority, shares this view, which also resonates with the broader population. Putin’s departure will not likely change the essence of the Russian challenge, no matter how different his successor’s style and tactics might be….
[An] all-encompassing state has been the central and decisive actor in Russian history. It gave structure to a vast, increasingly multiethnic, multi-confessional empire…. Russia’s expansion only stopped when it ran into countervailing geopolitical forces — the Germanic powers… in the West, China and eventually Japan in the East, and the British Empire in the South. Over the centuries, this dialectic of expansion and resistance created Russia’s geopolitical space, roughly the territory of the former Soviet Union or Russian Empire. This is the sphere of influence Russian rulers consider essential to their security. This is why they have pushed back so vigorously against what they see as American encroachments on this sphere in the past 15 years through, for example, the expansion of NATO and the establishment of military bases in Central Asia, tied to operations in Afghanistan….
The internal and external imperatives have combined to feed a persistent sense of vulnerability that never lies far beneath the surface in the consciousness of Russia’s rulers…. [They] hope to replicate the success of their predecessors, and avoid the catastrophic failure of Gorbachev, by restoring and sustaining Russia’s position as a great power.
The final geopolitical element of Russia’s strategy is to rein in the United States, to compel it to take into account the interests of other great powers, including first of all Russia, as it pursues its own. That is the goal of Russia’s effort to rally support against the U.S.-led global order for a new multipolar world based on state sovereignty and mutual respect (at least among great powers).
Russia Looks Fairly Strong Today
A number of Russian intellectuals who are critical of the current regime have written articles recently about “Russia’s decline,” anticipating a change in government in the next 10 to15 years, when Putin, now 63, and his ruling circle, leave politics. One of them is Denis Volkov, a sociologist and analyst at Levada Center a think tank based in Moscow that is threatened with the possibility of being banned. In a July 6 article titled “Russia of the Mid-2020s: Breakdown of the Political Order” he argues “that the heyday of Putin’s regime is already in the past and that in the next 10 to15 years, the Russian political system may wind up in disarray. The legitimacy of the regime, which has been waning for some time, will eventually undermine its ability to maintain social order and deal with new and impending crises.”
We find this critic’s brief paragraph about the stability in Russia today — despite serious economic problems, and widespread corruption — to be enlightening:
At present, Vladimir Putin’s political regime seems stable and solid. The president himself enjoys the approval of some 80% (82% at latest count) of the population. Approval of the government’s performance has also remained high, as the Kremlin has proved rather effective in dealing with the current economic crisis, in executing covert operations to annex Crimea, and in maintaining social stability in the country. The system seems to be legitimate enough, both with the elites and the population as a whole, to suggest that the parliamentary elections of 2016 will once again result in a Duma controlled by the party in power. And, in 2018, Putin will be re-elected president should he choose to run for the office. The regime was able to maintain this legitimacy by demonstrating its vitality and ability to deal with several concurrent and successive economic and political crises. In 2005 and 20112012, it withstood a series of popular protests on a national scale (with mass protests on a regional level in 2009–2010); it managed to transfer presidential power from Putin to Dmitry Medvedev in 2007-2008, and back to Putin in 2011-2012; it weathered economic crises in 2009 and has coped adequately with more recent economic troubles. Further, Putin’s Russia has projected power in the war with Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine in 2014, and the intervention in Syria in support of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
Russia’s Economic Problems
A portion of Russia’s current economic problems, according to an article in Foreign Policy Journal by Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson, stems from Washington’s advice to develop a neoliberal capitalist economy to trusting Russian leaders in the early days after the downfall.
“Washington abused this trust to saddle Russia with an economic policy designed to carve up Russian economic assets and transfer ownership into foreign hands. By tricking Russia into accepting foreign capital and exposing the ruble to currency speculation, Washington made sure that the U.S. could destabilize Russia with capital outflows and assaults on the ruble’s exchange value. Only a government unfamiliar with the neoconservative aim of U.S. world hegemony would have exposed its economic system to such foreign manipulation.” The authors also note:
According to various reports, the Russian government is reconsidering the neoliberal policy that has served Russia so badly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If Russia had adopted an intelligent economic policy, Russia’s economy would be far ahead of where it stands today. It would have avoided most of the capital flight to the West by relying on self-finance.
Russian journalist and economic correspondent Dmitry Dokuchaev noted in Russia Direct Aug. 24 that “Russian capital flight — one of the major problems complicating the recovery of the nation’s economy — has been reduced five-fold since 2015. The Russian economy is gradually recovering from the economic shock of two years ago, which occurred after the sudden drop in oil prices and the pressure from Western sanctions. In the second half of August, both Bloomberg and Moody’s announced that Russia’s recession was ending. More importantly, statistical evidence shows improvement in Russia’s economy.”
The 2018 Election and Beyond
According to an Aug. 25 article by Andrei Kolnesnikov published in the Moscow Times: “It is apparent that President Putin won’t take all members of the old guard with him in 2018 when he is expected to win another presidential election that year. Some will be replaced with younger, more efficient officials.”
Kolnesnikov, a senior associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center, continued: “The surprise Mid-August replacement of Sergei Ivanov, a longtime ally of Putin, with former head of protocol Anton Vaino as presidential chief of staff, sparked a host of speculation, most of which can be safely disregarded. But, digging through the unfounded forecasts, one can find a clear message.
A comparison of Vaino’s credentials to those of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev suggests that he may well become the new prime minister. Like Vaino, Medvedev previously worked for the central government and was also known as a businesslike and responsible official. Like Vaino, Medvedev was presidential chief of staff and was not considered an independent figure. But the main point is that the regime needs to prepare a new generation of the elite to stand by Putin in 2018, when his current presidential term ends, and beyond. As chief of staff, Vaino will be instrumental in preparing this new wave of politicians.
The recent removals of officials like Russian Railways boss Vladimir Yakunin, drug tsar Viktor Ivanov, and others are preparations for 2018. The list of retired will only get longer. They will be replaced by a generation of special service operatives, security guards, and technocrat-apparatchiks in their 40s and 50s.
Stratfor reported Sept. 22: “Less than a week after parliamentary elections affirmed the ruling party’s hold on power, Putin is once again shaking things up in the Kremlin. On Sept. 22, Putin appointed Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin to head the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) in place of longtime leader Mikhail Fradkov. In the Duma, meanwhile, Vyacheslav Volodin, Putin’s former deputy chief of staff, will likely take over as speaker, having won a seat for the ruling United Russia party in the Sept. 18 elections. Rumors of the reshuffle have circulated in the media for weeks, but the motives for the move remain unclear.”
Communist Party Critique of Putin’s Russia
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) — a remnant of the ruling Soviet Communist Party — is not a revolutionary party and has little power. But it speaks freely and it put forward for this year’s parliamentary elections a left agenda titled “Ten Steps Toward Life with Dignity” that calls for substantial changes in the organization of society. It’s quite revealing. Here are brief excerpts:
· The riches of Russia must serve the people and not a handful of oligarchs. We come out for nationalization of the oil and gas industries. This measure alone will increase the national revenue by more than three trillion rubles. Nationalization of key banks, the power industry, railways, communications systems, and defense industries would create a strong government sector in the economy. This would make Russia less dependent on foreign capital. Today the share of foreign companies in metallurgy, railway and power generating machine building already exceeds 75%. That share continues to grow in spite of the sanctions. In effect, we are talking about colonial dependence….
· Today Russia’s financial system is tightly linked to the centers of world capitalism. The country does not enjoy real independence. It is time to restore our economic sovereignty and protect ourselves from the diktat of the dollar. The Central Bank of Russia should be rid of the influence of the U.S. Federal Reserve System. It must serve the cause of developing the national economy and the social sphere. State control of the banking system and currency transactions will be able to stop the appalling flow of capital abroad. In recent years it has turned into an instrument of ruining Russia and robbing its citizens. In the past ten years the country lost nearly 40 trillion rubles, which equals three annual budgets….The new government will also strengthen the country’s economic sovereignty by promoting small and medium business and advanced forms of economic management. Our anti-crisis plan guarantees maximum support of people’s and collective enterprises….
· Enough claptrap about import replacement. It is a disgrace for our country to be in 95th place in terms of economic development. It is a disgrace to have16% of manufacturing industry in the structure of GDP. Its share has to be raised to 70-80%. In Germany the share is 83%. Russia needs a powerful modern industry based on latest discoveries and high technologies. Its key sectors should be microelectronics, robotics and machine-tool building. Only then would we be able to survive in a world where predatory globalists run the show. Thanks to the perseverance of the CPRF the Law on Industrial Policy has been passed. It has to be made to work….
· The land of Russia can feed its own population plus another 500 million people with choice food products. Yet half of our food is imported from abroad and it is often of inferior quality. All this can be done if two conditions are complied with. First, at least 10% of budget revenue should be directed to support agriculture. Second, active support must be given to private farmers and peasant households. It has long been proven that such enterprises are more resilient. They adapt far better to changes in the food market.
· In terms of living standards Russia has dropped to 91st place in the world next to Laos and Guatemala. That is not the way to live. Running the economy like this is a crime. The state is duty-bound to control prices for bare necessities, fuel and drugs. The spending on utilities and housing services must not exceed 10% of the family budget… Taxes must be fair and effective.
Ten percent of the population has grabbed almost 90% of the national wealth. What is the price of all this? The price is that while some people are wallowing in riches, the majority barely make ends meet. Their labor and pension rights, the right to education and healthcare are under attack.
Moscow’s Cooperation With Washington
Since Putin became Russia’s leader as prime minister and president — despite Washington’s increasing hostility — the Kremlin has cooperated with the White House on numerous occasions. For instance:
Moscow is the main reason why President Obama did not launch another Middle East war. It was Russia that came up with the deal in August 2013 that allowed Obama to forego his risky commitment to massively bomb Syria for allegedly crossing his “red line” that prohibited the Assad regime from using its chemical weapons against the Syrian people. The government had been accused of deploying the nerve gas Sarin to kill at least 281 civilians in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus — an allegation the regime strongly denied and which has never been proven. (Seymour Hersh argues it was a false-flag endeavor by the terrorist organization al-Nusra and backed by Turkey to provoke U.S. bombing.) Putin arranged that the Syrian government would offer to relinquish its entire chemical weapons arsenal if the bombing was called off. Obama quickly accepted the offer, avoiding massive antiwar protests and opposition from millions of Americans and many members of Congress. The New York Times reported: “President Obama awoke up Monday (Sept. 9) facing a Congressional defeat that many in both parties believed could hobble his presidency. And by the end of the day, he found himself in the odd position of relying on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir V. Putin, of all people, to bail him out.” U.S. and British intelligence subsequently acknowledged doubts that Assad ordered the use of poison gas.
· Russia played a major role in the successful talks with Iran to conclude a nuclear agreement. As an ally of the Tehran government, Moscow was concerned for a number of years that Israel would fulfill its continual threats to take military action against Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program — a program Tehran closed down years earlier according to American intelligence organizations. Russia strongly urged Iran to enter one-on-one talks with Washington and then the six party the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France — plus Germany.
· Putin and George W. Bush signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty and declaration on a new strategic relationship between the U.S. and Russia in 2002. This was superseded in 2011 by the New Start treaty limiting more nuclear weapons.
· The U.S and Russia jointly announced the organization of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism in 2006. In 2009, Russia granted President Obama permission to ship U.S. weapons supplies across its territory, or through its airspace, en route to Afghanistan. Moscow has also granted NATO members Germany, France and Spain the right to use Russian territory to transit military cargos to Afghanistan.
What Now?
There should be a closer relationship and far more cooperation between Washington and Moscow instead of ever greater hostilities that could eventually lead to a most regrettable conclusion. As a socialist I certainly recognize both capitalist governments have, to say the least, shortcomings that should be corrected. But if the U.S. in effect dismounted from its high horse and sought a peaceful and mutually advantageous relationship with Russia it could succeed. Moscow would much prefer a far less antagonistic relationship.
The biggest obstacle is Washington’s insistence that the countries in the world agree to follow U.S. leadership, and virtually all of them do because of America’s unprecedented economic and military power. At the same time, those who don’t line up with the global hegemon frequently experience regime change, wars or both.
Hillary Clinton’s braggadocio about U.S. exceptionalism and indispensability means global domination in political practice. The world doesn’t need that.
There has to be an end to America’s unjust wars, support for repellent dictatorships, and continuous efforts to instigate regime change. As it stands today the U.S. is spending a trillion dollars to make its nuclear arsenal more deadly. It is surrounding both Russia and China with military bases and implicit threats that can lead to no good.
Syria is the summation of all the errors of a dysfunctional empire collapsing upon itself. History forgotten. Science ignored. Facts denied. Propaganda cannot hide that West is supporting and killing Islamists at the same time in a World War that risks escalating into a nuclear holocaust. — Vietnam Vet, comments-line, Sic Semper Tyrannis
The attack on Deir Ezzor was a flagrant act of betrayal. For the first time in the five year-long war, US warplanes targeted an SAA military outpost killing 62 Syrian regulars. The surprise attacks — which lasted for the better part of an hour and were followed by a coordinated ground assault by members of ISIS– were intended to torpedo the fragile ceasefire agreement and send a message to Moscow that the US was prepared to achieve its strategic objectives in Syria whether it had to launch direct attacks on defenders of the regime or not.
The attacks–for which the Pentagon eventually accepted responsibility–were followed by a callous and thoroughly-unprofessional tirade by the administration’s chief diplomat at the United Nations, Samantha Power. Power dispelled any doubt that either she or anyone else in the Obama administration cared at all about the people who lost their lives in the bombing raid. She also made it clear that she didn’t care if the US had violated the terms of the ceasefire just two days before critical parts of the agreement were scheduled to be implemented.
Naturally, Moscow was taken aback by Washington’s reaction, it’s blatant disregard for the soldiers they killed, and its obvious determination to sabotage the ceasefire. Having reflected on Obama’s de facto rejection of the agreement, Putin pursued the only viable option left open to him; more war. As a result, he has intensified his efforts on the battlefield particularly around Aleppo where the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and crack-units from Hezbollah have launched a three-prong attack that will dispose of the US-backed jihadists that have destroyed much of Syria over the last half-decade and displaced over 7 million civilians.
Bottom line: Having foreclosed the political option for reducing the violence, the Obama administration will now face the consequences for its rejection.
Here’s an excellent summary of developments on the ground around Aleppo from decorated veteran and retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets) Colonel W. Patrick Lang. The article was posted on September 24:
As of today, forces have been massed at Aleppo for the purpose of eliminating the East Aleppo rebel pocket. This pocket has now been without re-supply for an extended period. This is true for both the jihadi rebels and the civilian population, many of whom are rebel supporters.
IMO (In my opinion) the main effort by R+6 is taking place at the SE side of the East Aleppo pocket. That is now underway with massive CAS from Russian aerospace forces. At the same time Palestinian militia allies with CAS have attacked the fortified Handarat refugee camp at the NE corner of the pocket. IMO this is a secondary attack intended to prevent the rebels moving forces south to oppose the main R+6 effort.
This is an excellent plan.
At the same time there is an unconfirmed report from SOHR in London (pro-rebel) that a Russian force with 3,000 men has been positioned at al-Safir about 12 km. SE of the main attacks on the Aleppo pocket. If this report is correct this force is well positioned to reinforce the main attack or be used in a defensive move against a rebel effort elsewhere. It would be in the Russian operational tradition to pass a reinforcing “wave” or echelon of forces through the initial assault forces when they become exhausted by combat….
The foreign policy establishment (Borg) in the West wants to believe that war is obsolete as a factor in the story of humanity…. They believe that they have inherited the earth and that their cleverness will always prevail over mere force.
We will now have a demonstration that this is not true.
(“Flash! Washpost discovers that Syria War may be “winnable.”, Sic Semper Tyrannis)
Obama’s de facto rejection of the ceasefire has created the conditions for a decisive military defeat in Aleppo. The fate of the CIA-trained “moderate” terrorists hunkered down in East Aleppo is not that different from that of General George Armstrong Custer at the Little Bighorn who was surrounded by a superior military force and summarily slaughtered to the man. This is the option Pentagon warlord, Ash Carter chose when he decided to sabotage the joint military implementation agreement and go rogue. Carter opposed the ceasefire deal and in doing so signed the death warrant for hundreds of US-backed extremists who chances for survival are growing slimmer by the day.
According to recent reports, pro-government forces are advancing on a number of fronts. At the same time, the Syrian and Russian air forces have intensified their bombing campaign reducing large swathes of the city to rubble and killing several hundred Sunni militants. While the jihadists have performed better than many had expected, their fate is no longer in doubt. The cauldron is encircled, their front lines are collapsing, their supply lines have been severed, and the end is in sight.
Aleppo will fall and the US-backed effort to topple the Assad government using a proxy army of Islamic extremists will fail.
A few things need to be said about the ceasefire to set the record straight.
First, there was never any chance that the US was going to abide by the terms of the agreement. The US has no way of separating the “moderates” from the extremists which was one of the main requirements of the deal. That was never going to happen. But, more importantly, the Pentagon –which opposed the agreement from the get-go –had no intention of complying with its demands.
Why?
Well, for one thing, as Syrian President Bashar al Assad said himself:
…the United States doesn’t have the will to work against al-Nusra or ISIS, because they believe that this is a card they can use for their own agenda. If they attack al-Nusra or ISIS, they will lose a very important card regarding the situation in Syria. So, I don’t believe the United States will be ready to join Russia in fighting terrorists in Syria.
Bingo. Assad is not suggesting that al-Nusra or ISIS are controlled by Langley. He’s merely saying that– inasmuch as the goals of these groups coincide with US strategic objectives (which they certainly do in Syria) Washington will continue to support their activities. In other words, Obama would rather see a “Salafist principality” emerge in Syria then allow an independent, secular government to remain in place. Everyone who has followed events closely in Syria for the last five years, knows this is true.
The other reason the Pentagon opposed the agreement was because they didn’t want to comply with the military-to-military coordination plan. The western media has been particularly opaque on this issue. For example, according to the New York Times deal would be “an extraordinary collaboration between the United States and Russia that calls for the American military to share information with Moscow on Islamic State targets in Syria.” (“Details of Syria Pact Widen Rift Between John Kerry and Pentagon“, New York Times)
Okay, but why is that a problem? Wouldn’t that be the most effective way to defeat ISIS and Al Qaida? Of course, it would. So, what’s the rub? Here’s more from the NYT:
Chief among Pentagon concerns is whether sharing targeting information with Russia could reveal how the United States uses intelligence to conduct airstrikes, not just in Syria but in other places, which Moscow could then use for its own advantage in the growing confrontations undersea and in the air around the Baltics and Europe. (NYT)
This is complete baloney. The fact is the Pentagon doesn’t want to have to get approval for its target-list (identify and verify) from the Russian military. That’s what’s really going on. And the reason for this is obvious, the strategic objectives of the US are exact opposite of Moscow’s. Washington has no interest in defeating terrorism in Syria, in fact, as we pointed out earlier, Washington is just fine with terrorism as long it helps them move the ball closer to the goalpost. What the US wants is to topple the regime, replace Assad with a US-stooge, splinter the country into multiple parts, and control vital pipeline corridors. These goals cannot be achieved if the Pentagon has to get a green-light from Moscow every time they go on a bombing raid. How are they going to assist their jihadist assets on the ground if they have to follow that rule?
They won’t be able to, which is why it’s no surprise that SECDEF Ash Carter put the kibosh on the deal by bombing the SAA positions at Deir Ezzor. The massacre effectively ended all talk about “coordination” with the Russians. Mission accomplished.
But even this does not completely explain why the Pentagon launched this unprecedented attack that killed 62 Syrian soldiers and moved the two superpowers closer to a direct confrontation. To grasp what’s really going on behind the endless recriminations, we need to understand that the Obama administration has abandoned its original plan to oust Syrian President Bashar al Assad, and moved on to Plan B; partitioning the country in a way that establishes a separate Sunni state where US troops will be based and where vital pipelines will be built to transfer natural gas from Qatar to the EU.
This ambitious plan is more than a redrawing of the Middle East and a pivot to Asia. It is a critical lifeline to a country (USA) whose economic prospects are progressively dimming, whose credit card is maxed out, and who is counting on a Hail Mary pass in Syria to save itself from cataclysmic economic collapse and ruination. Washington must succeed in Syria because, well, because it must, because the red ink has finally penetrated the pinewood hull and is fast filling the galley. A defeat in the Middle East could be the straw that broke the camel’s back, the tipping point in the agonizingly-protracted unipolar-new-world-order experiment. In other words, it’s Syria or bust. Here’s a little background that will help to clarify what’s going on:
Washington has previously made it clear that if it cannot achieve its plan A; regime change, it will go for its plan B; to balkanize the country and help to create a Kurdish and/or Sunni state in eastern Syria…
Attacking the Syrian Army, and allowing ISIL to capture the city will make Deir Ezzor a probable target for the US-backed proxies to attack and annex. (“The Ceasefire Failed; What happens now?“, The Vineyard of the Saker)
So, Washington wants to control Syria’s eastern quadrant (where Deir Ezzor is located) for military bases, pipeline routes, and a Sunni homeland, which is more-or-less the pretext for continued military occupation. Here’s more from an article by Christina Lin:
Writing in Armed Forces Journal4, Major Rob Taylor joined numerous other pundits in observing that the Syrian civil war is actually a pipeline war over control of energy supply, with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey needing to remove Assad “so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.”….
…if the Saudi/Qatar/Turkey backed Army of Conquest can control just enough land in Syria for a salafist statelet (aka–Sunnistan) to build the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, then these sunni states can finally realize their pipeline dream. Indeed, the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report6 corroborates their desire to carve out a salafist statelet in Syria east of Assad-controlled territory in order to put pressure on his regime. (“Chinese stratagems and Syrian buffer zone for Turkey-Qatar pipeline“, Christina Lin, Times of Israel)
The idea of splintering Syria into numerous fragments (and controlling the eastern portion of the state) has been promoted by western elites across the board, from neocon John Bolton who said:
Today’s reality is that Iraq and Syria as we have known them are gone…..Washington should recognize the new geopolitics. The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state.
This “Sunni-stan” has economic potential as an oil producer….and could be a bulwark against both Mr. Assad and Iran-allied Baghdad. (“To Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State“, New York Times)
Liberal interventionists at the Brookings Institute are pushing for the same balkanization remedy. Here’s a clip from an article at Brookings titled “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war” by chief military analyst, Michael O’ Hanlon:
…the only realistic path forward may be a plan that in effect deconstructs Syria….the international community should work to create pockets with more viable security and governance within Syria over time… Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL….
So, there you have it; divide and conquer. Split up the country, install new leaders, and let the plundering begin. Sound familiar?
But the Russian’s will have none of it, in fact, Putin has responded to Carter’s escalation by escalating himself. The circle around Aleppo has closed, supply lines have been cut, the airstrikes have intensified, and the three-pronged ground assault has already begun. So while Washington may have big plans for Syria, they appear to be failing where it counts most…..on the battlefield.
In a 40 minute speech opening, the September G20 Summit in Hangzhou, Chinese President Xi Jinping outlined a global vision so comprehensive and detailed that it was tantamount to a blueprint for restructuring and transforming the currently unbalanced architecture of the world economy, and replacing it with a more stable model, enhancing economic and social justice.
The blueprint advocated by China’s President would end the dominance of predatory Western Capitalist economies predicated on the plunder of the developing world, and exploitation of the rich natural resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America. This plunder has fueled and sustained the monopolization of global wealth by a narcissistic and miniscule minority of .01 percent of the world’s population, while condemning the vast 99% majority of the world’s population to the doom inflicted by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: conquest, war, famine and pestilence.
Xi Jinping’s inclusion, as guests, of the Heads of State of formerly excluded developing countries at the G20 Hangzhou Summit provided, for the first time, the opportunity for the voices of these countries to be heard and heeded, and a new model for the G20, as China’s presidency encourages the G20 to “meet the demands of people in all countries,” by innovation of development models building an open world economy. He asserted the imperative that the world’s Gini coefficient, which measures inequality currently at 0.7, (exceeding the already acknowledged and alarming level of 0.6,) must be taken seriously as evidence that the currently dangerous economic structural imbalance threatens already fragile and deteriorating global stability. This perilously unbalanced economic order, if uncorrected, lurches toward the devastating tipping point of uncontrollable global economic and social crisis, with resultant chaos and uncontainable violence spreading throughout the world.
What Xi Jinping proposes appears to be no less than a profound restructuring of the global economic architecture, transforming it into one that redresses grievances of the overwhelming majorities of the populations of the developing world, and promotes industrialization of huge swaths of developing countries currently dependent on “monocrops,” or whose economies are dependent upon one resource, such as oil, condemning these unbalanced and underdeveloped economies to dependency and victimization as the price of these monoproducts fluctuates, often by geopolitically motivated external manipulation, with the standard of living of these dependent and too often victimized populations rising or collapsing accordingly.
The speed of China’s growth is exponential and should most probably be attributed to its socialist economic model, “with Chinese characteristics,” which is fully compatible with rapidly achieving the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development goals, a United Nations agenda which bears striking similarity to the economic and social goals of socialism. Although there are areas of serious inequality within China, and still impoverished places within the country, the Chinese government is aware of the vulnerability and risk that this inequality presents, and is addressing the need to eliminate poverty within China, with notable success.
This is in stark contrast with large areas of the so-called “developed world,” where austerity measures within Europe, and the dismantling of the New Deal social protections within the USA is eroding the middle class, exponentially increasing inequality, and destabilizing societies within these capitalist economies. This is resulting in rampant and increasing violence and debased standards of education and health care, reducing these capitalist enclaves to the level of Third World countries, as they unravel and slouch toward underdevelopment, and a form of internal colonization of impoverished majorities controlled by Wall Street.
It is possible that the participating leaders of “developed” capitalist countries in attendance at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, hearing President Xi Jinping’s speech, might, instead of heeding his wise prescription for win-win transformation of the global economy, could, instead, react with alarm, and reject his blueprint for a stabilizing global economic and socially equitable architecture and governance, regarding it as a threat to their centuries-long dominance of the global economic, social and military order, which benefited the tiny minority which monopolized the profits of that zero-sum order. Such an adverse reaction to Xi Jinping’s speech at Hangzhou might lead to an escalation of confrontation, in an attempt to thwart, and ultimately cripple China’s breathtaking ascendance, which contrasts so vividly with the capitalist unipolar dominance of the world, which recently culminated, disastrously, in the global economic crisis of 2008.
The US-ROK supported THAAD missile system threatens to destabilize both China and Russia, essentially completing the encirclement of Russia, surrounded by NATO bases in the West, and now threatened by THAAD in the East. Interestingly, however, the US military and political efforts to encircle and “contain” China seem to be effectively countered by China’s recent visits to Canada and Cuba, which cemented economic and political bonds with these close neighbors of the USA, and, perhaps inadvertently constitute a reciprocal “encirclement” of the United States.
It was significant that the grossly increased investment in advanced nuclear weapons by the USA and the UK was not discussed publicly at the G20 in Hangzhou. Regardless of the focus of the Summit on investment in development and cooperation, the discrepancy with the countervailing investments by some G20 participants in the instruments of global destruction, however profitable, should have been of central concern. Ignoring this discrepancy forfeits a great opportunity, and merely postpones the inevitable day of reckoning.
Over the weekend the Western press is blasting Russia and Syria for alleged war crimes in their assault on the terrorist controlled part of East Aleppo. A typical headline from The Washington Postreads “US accuses Russia of ‘barbarism’ and war crimes in Syria.” Meanwhile, the Long War Journal declares “US hits another Islamic State chemical weapons facility in Iraq.”
UK’s foreign minister Boris Johnson is crying foul that Russia should be investigated for war crimes. The Western media of course is now in high gear fanning the flames, charging Putin and Assad with war crimes due to apparent heavy civilian losses. Reports range up to139 casualties this weekend alone. If readers take these latest proclamations at face value, they would automatically conclude that America and its Western vassals are the true holier-than-thou good guys in the Middle East fighting the bad terrorists Islamic State while Russia and Syria as the US demonized enemies are the ultimate bad guys mercilessly committing crimes against humanity.
Let’s first address the report that the US bombed a terrorist chemical weapons factory in Iraq. Hands down the US is the singlebiggest perpetrator ever using chemical warfare in crimes against humanity. Between dropping two atomic bombs when Truman knew that a defeated Japan was already wanting to surrender to the unprecedented tonnage of napalm bombs used over Tokyo in the final year of World War II (in just a two day period in March 1945, the US dropped over 1500 tons of napalm bombs), to the even more napalm used at 125 tons a day for three years less than a decade later to kill upwards of 5 million Koreans during America’s first undeclared war, followed by 400,000 more tons of napalm and 20 million gallons of Agent Orange dumped during the Vietnam War that eliminated up to 3.4 million South East Asians (Vietnam Red Cross estimated 4.8 million deaths from Agent Orange alone), the US has a very long history of flagrantly violating international law banning chemical and biological warfare ever since the 1925 Geneva Protocol to its 1993 renewal. Not that a law ever stopped US exceptionalism from wrongdoing, those wars were just the beginning.
Depleted uranium left behind in both Afghanistan and Iraq’s both Gulf War rubble and then the white phosphorus poured down on Fallujah residents in Iraq in the last decade, not to mention in 1988 giving Saddam Hussein made-in-America mustard gas that Washington knew would be used on his own Kurdish citizens and Iranian troops for which US intelligence helped deliver target coordinates, America has used chemicals that have helped kill millions during every single decade since the 1940’s.
That’s seven decades in a row!
On top of that, the US regularly uses internationally outlawed tear gas on its own citizens who exercise First Amendment rights to protest. America’s militarized police illegally unleash chemicals and batons as counterterrorism weapons against peaceful assembly to break up protests like the Occupy movement. No other nation comes close, although at least two Empire buddies also use US-made chemical weapons. Israel deployed white phosphorus on Palestinians in Gaza and Saudis are now using the same US supplied skin-melting WMD on victims in Yemen. Birds of a feather…
Then there was the sarin gas chemical weapon launched on the Damascus suburb back in August 2013 by US-supported terrorists that Obama wrongly blamed Assad for in his false flag attempt to first commit airstrikes on Syria. Met with strong opposition worldwide, among them 91% of Americans and UK parliament along with a last minute brokered deal by Putin allowing Assad to turn in his chemical weapons, Obama was successfully thwarted from potentially starting WWIII the first time around. Still possessing among the largest stockpiles of outlawed chemical weapons and by far history’s worst offender using them, a claim that the US recently destroyed a chemical bomb factory in Iraq hardly turns Empire into a good guy. The same can be said when every now and then the US kills a high profile terrorist, making a big deal as if it covers up the fact that Obama and his neocons are in bed with terrorists.
Under totalitarian regimes information and disinformation are always used as propaganda fodder in a war to control andbrainwash people’s minds. Inevitably history teaches us that the truth becomes every tyrannical government’s enemy and lies are the standard weapon deployed to justify and cover up actual evil. In this war in Syria and broader Middle East, if the truth be known, US led coalition forces are the true bad guys protecting their fellow bad guys as their proxy war terrorist allies that the US itselfcreated decades ago while at the same time combating the only true fighters against terrorism in Syria – Russia, Syria, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah and Syrian Kurds.
Washington neocons never fail to utilize their hypocritical standby attempting to feebly take the moral high ground always justifying their overt military aggression in the name of humanitarianism. Without any evidence to back up her completely bogus claim, the US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power keeps accusing Putin as the perpetrator of what turns out most likely to be another US staged terrorist rocket attack that a week ago destroyed 18 of 31 trucks killing 21 in a UN aid convoy, thus resulting in suspension of relief efforts to the people of Aleppo.
While the Russian military spokesman maintained in addition to neither Russia nor Syria standing to gain from attacking the convoy, the damage to the vehicles and remnant traces appear to be from shells fired by tanks, cannons or RPG’s that al-Nusra Front (deceptively renamed last month Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) is equipped with and was visibly active in the area where the attack occurred. Even the UN retracted earlier statements and moved away from placing the blame on Russia. In any event, the US and its fellow terrorists would obviously benefit the most by blaming Russia. And both Empire and terrorists have the means to carry out such an attack.
In a Sunday emergency session of the UN Security Council, Power led the flimsy high and mighty charge:
Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and Assad make war. What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counterterrorism. It is barbarism.
It was the United States that pressured and insisted the UN deliver aid relief against both Syria and Russia’s warnings that insisted the terrorist controlled road to Aleppo was unsafe for passage. But the neocons had an agenda to pressure the UN to get clearance for the convoy delivery. It’s now come to light that a privately funded NGO security firm owned by a former British military intelligence officer (not unlike Blackwater) hires fake first responders that pose as Syria Civil Defense covertly operating with Western security forces most often in terrorist embedded areas.
They’re called the white hats (helmets) and most likely last week worked in cahoots with the local terrorists to pull off the false flag so that Empire could conveniently blame Putin for the so called airstrikes out of some twisted revenge that only diabolical forces of the US crime cabal could dream up.
Coldhearted Russia and Syria would be blamed for not permitting humanitarian assistance to the long suffering residents of Aleppo. Washington and hired white helmet first responders would insist that Russian bombers flew overhead for hours blowing up the convoy at the loading docks while food supplies were being lifted onto trucks 15 miles from Aleppo, thus also “proving” that Putin and Assad had no interest in either the September 9th ceasefire nor peace.
The other part of the now shattered US-Russian brokered peace proposal was that the US would entice or coerce its infamously labeled “moderate rebels” to uphold the ceasefire agreement while physically separating themselves from so called “bad terrorists,” ISIS/al Qaeda/al-Nusra Front. Instead the Syrian government stated that the US backed moderate opposition groups violated the agreement over 300 times from September 12th to the 19th, and at no time did the US follow through on its preposterous role to impose its backed rebels leave Aleppo in order to distance themselves from the terrorist groups ISIS/al Qaeda/Jabhat Fatah al Sham entrenched in the besieged city of Aleppo.
It was a sham from the start and Defense Secretary Carter and his generals knew the ceasefire would expose their pretend game. Peace was never part of the US agenda as anyone who knows anything realized long ago that there’s no differencebetween so called moderates and ISIS except that the moderates are completely dependent in close alignment with the big boys ISIS/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra.
Obviously the most damning evidence indicating that the US never intended to honor the ceasefire agreement came when US led coalition jets attacked a Syrian Arab Army position near Deir Ezzor airbase on Saturday September 17th that the US feebly claimed was “an accident.” The Russians had to call the Americans twice for the hour long airstrikes to finally be called off. The incident that killed at least 70 Syrian soldiers and wounded over 100 allowed sufficient air cover for nearby ISIS terrorists to wage a successful assault within seven minutes after the airstrikes began to advance forward to overtake the attacked Syrian high ground.
The Damasus government intercepted a conversation between the US military and ISIS just prior to the airstrikes, confirming they were premeditated, well-coordinated, and deliberate acts of aggression that violate international law and more than anything else expose US Empire’s true intentions all along in the Middle East to protect its terrorist ally.
The UN convoy attack two days later was mere camouflage in a vain attempt to disguise US criminality for the Saturday airstrikes involving US, Australian and UK warplanes. Because the Syrian government forces were clearly winning the war against the terrorists and closing in on the final ISIS strongholds of East Aleppo and Raqqa, the Washington neocons were deceitfully using the ceasefire and months of Vienna talks as opportunity for its proxy terrorist allies to regroup and then launch its latest volley in the propaganda war to smear both Assad and Putin with this most recent barrage of verbal attacks. That’s what nations do just before all-out war, they demonize to dehumanize the enemy as propagandized mental prepping for war. Right now Washington is conditioning Americans for world war against Russia.
Still another hugely significant development from last Tuesday receiving a Western media blackout again proves that the US Empire and its Western puppets are behind the terrorists.
A Russian missile attack destroyed a secret field operations room in west Aleppo province just three days after the Syrian soldiers were killed in the US airstrike. Three caliber missiles from Russian warships were responsible for killing 30 military intelligence officers from the US, Israel, UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, confirming that the US Empire is leading all terrorist operations in Aleppo province.
Once the US shifted its game changing strategy to “accidentally on purpose” murder Syrian soldiers, Putin and Assad have been forced to change their rules of engagement, now taking out any forces deemed hostile to the Damascus government, regardless of what nation they belong to. The US airstrike and Russian missile attack have ratcheted up hostilities to extreme risk that war breaking out between the US and Russia appears inevitable.
The Russians now realize that the US can never be trusted, that Washington neocons never had any intention of making peace in Syria, and that using the Vienna talks as a smokescreen only enabled terrorist factions to regroup and subsequently prolong Empire’s regime change war by securing a safe haven. As such, the Russian-Syrian led coalition is now resolved to unilaterally finishing off the terrorists themselves by over the weekend stepping up their air campaign on terrorist controlled East Aleppo. Where there is no will to achieve peace through diplomacy, as the double-crossing US has demonstrated, Russia, Syria and Iran have concluded that the only solution is through achieving a military victory against all the terrorists as well as their Western sponsors in Syria.
Similarly, Iraq also painfully knows that the US has only led a fake war against ISIS, often witnessing US airdropping arms, ammo and supplies to the terrorists. So without Washington’s help, the Iraqi militia, Iraqi Kurds and Iranian military are set to take back Mosulthe second largest city as the final terrorist stronghold in that nation as well. Because the real antiterrorist forces have made so much progress this last year combating the world’s largest terrorist organization that US Empire created and still obviously supports, that’s why the US and its vassals are resorting to such desperate measures both on the battlefield as well as the information war to keep both their terrorists and its war on terror alive.
In reaction to the warmongering rhetoric that Washington and its European vassals keep echoing about “Russian war crimes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the West’s remarks are highly “unacceptable,” adding the truth that terrorists were misusing the ceasefire to “regroup, to replenish their arsenals and for obvious preparations to carry out attacks.” Hence, the double down on artillery and airstrikes before Syrian ground forces move in to the embattled, jihad held areas of Aleppo.
Leave it to spot-on Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova on her Facebook page to rebuke Samantha Power’s hypocritical grandstanding:
Historically speaking… a barbarian is someone not belonging to an empire, and we have only one of those today. As for the imagery… the world has seen nothing more barbaric in modern history than Iraq and Libya done the Washington way.
The geopolitics chessboard game that US Empire is so recklessly playing with partner-in-crime Turkey is nothing short of full implementation of their Plan A (at one time masqueraded as Plan B if the so called peace process breaks down, which the US had obviously been planning for all along), to establish a permanent terrorist stronghold with a no fly zone over eastern Syria in order for the terrorists the US and Turkey have been backing for years to continue fighting to finish off Assad.
Of course invading Syria gives Erdogan opportunity to fight Kurds to ensure they don’t secure northern Syria for themselves. After Erdogan shot down the Russian jet last November, it was impossible to invade Syria then without triggering an all-out war with Russia. So what does the subversive evildoing duo of NATO conspirators do? The US and Erdogan collude in staging an “unsuccessful” coup in July that prompts Erdogan to grovel in Moscow licking Putin’s bootstraps that then effectively sets the stage for Turkey to betray Russia a second time by suddenly invading northern Syria last month in an obvious ploy to finally secure their long plotted turf while restoring their much needed terrorist supply line.
It was recently reported that US Special Forces are stationed at seven different military bases in Northern Syria. With both Turkish and American boots now on the ground firmly and illegally entrenched on Syrian soil, the uninvited enemy invaders have finally positioned themselves to rescue their longtime sweetheart investment called global terrorism, force “balkanization” of Syria into weakened partitions while still seeking regime change against demonized enemies Assad and Putin as the warmup prelude to WWIII. Hence, this week’s over-the-top smear campaign by US to portray Syria and Russia as coldblooded monsters slaughtering poor Aleppo war victims, sabotaging all efforts at humanitarian aid while willfully refusing to comply with the peace proposal they signed and thereby torpedoing the peace process. This ongoing propaganda blitz is designed to leave the West no other choice but to stop the “evildoers” once and for all, thus forcing an unavoidable global war confrontation.
The history of the Middle East since 9/11 makes plain and clear who the actual good guys and who the real bad guys are, and not surprisingly for anyone half awake, it’s the opposite of how the Western propaganda machine is feeding the global masses its 24/7 lies as the primary driving force leading humanity on the fast track to World War III. 2000’s Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called for a “new Pearl Harbor” that the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz neocons materialized a year later as their 9/11 inside job, based on bogus lies about WMD’s and ties to terrorism granting license to illegally invade, indefinitely preoccupy and lay to waste both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as NATO waging an illegal air war against Libya, sending in more proxy terrorists to brutally murder Qaddafi who was leading Africa toward independence and prosperity away from US imperialism and its petrodollar chokehold.
Then came the CIA-induced Arab Spring uprising starting in 2011 as an extension of the neocon regime change operation taking down 7 sovereign nations in five years that General Wesley Clark leaked in 2007. With five down and still two to go on their unfinished hit list – Syria and Iran, the juggernaut to get to the grand prize Iran of course remains Assad’s Syria.
The fact that Assad rejected Empire’s 2009 Qatar-Turkey-Syria gas pipeline that would effectively crush Russia’s hold on European gas export sealed Assad’s fate as a forever target in Empire crosshairs. Hence, the propaganda making him an evil despot, but like Putin a saint compared to the demonic evil in control of the Washington warmongers.
With upwards of 400,000 Syrians killed in the near half dozen year war that US caused, and over 11 million people displaced constituting half of Syria’s prewar population, it is the US Empire that is truly the most brutally barbaric enemy to the entire world. Up to 30 million humans and counting have been murdered around the globe in the 37 nations that the US has attacked just since WWII. And with all its lies and disinformation, the United States is bent on igniting a global war that will likely dwarf in both death toll and human tragedy the two world wars from the last century combined.
So let’s not be fooled by the sleight of hand deadly deceptions spun by the ruling elite’s puppet show from Washington that’s currently waging a genocidal war against all of humanity.
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
An institution held hostage by imperialist governments cannot fulfill yearnings for peace and security
This year’s 71st United Nations General Assembly in New York City comes during a period of profound social and economic crises throughout the world. At present the largest population displacement since the conclusion of World War II stems directly from the imperialist militarism of the United States, NATO and their allies.
Many Africans from across the continent are facing the economic uncertainty engendered by the decline in oil and commodity prices and the continued exploitation within the global capitalist system. Western-based financial publications had designated Africa as a region of phenomenal economic growth yet a mere effort by the West to decrease its dependence upon oil produced outside of its borders has sent the modern-day nation-states spiraling into an economic downturn.
Both of the leading states in the region, the Republic of South Africa and the Federal Republic of Nigeria are in recession. Currency values have declined, unemployment is escalating and access to foreign exchange has been drying up rapidly. Tensions within South Africa and Nigeria have been concentrated in the governmental portfolios responsible for financial policy. Issues of corruption have come to the fore triggering investigations and calls for the removal of political leadership. However, the role of the international banks and military institutions which are at the source of the problems often escape the attention of the domestic and world media.
Consequently, when Republic of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe revealed that African states present at the UN General Assembly had discussed the possibility of withdrawing from the institution, it raised a serious question about the status of post-colonial governments encapsulated in the framework of this post-World War II construct. African leaders since the passage of the Ezulwini Consensus of 2005 have been demanding the acquisition of two permanent seats on the Security Council as well as five nonpermanent ones based upon the overall population, land mass and strategic resources in existence on the continent and in its waterways.
In an article published in the Zimbabwe Sunday Mail on September 26, its says “African countries have intensified their push to get two permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council with the continent’s leaders exploring the option of pulling out of the UN if their demand for reform is not met, President Mugabe has said. The President made the remarks at the Harare International Airport yesterday while addressing hundreds of Zanu-PF supporters who welcomed him on his return from the UN General Assembly in New York, as well as the Non-Aligned Movement conference in Venezuela.
The same article continues revealing that “In a bold speech that is likely to stir debate on the continent, President Mugabe said African leaders discussed options of withdrawing from the world body on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The decision, was however, shelved until next year’s UN summit where the continent’s leaders are expected to go for broke.” (Article by Kuda Bwititi)
The Need for Serious Discussion and Action
These demands are no insignificant matter as Washington and its allies escalate their military and intelligence interventions in Africa. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), which was formally launched in 2008 under former President George W. Bush, has been strengthened and enhanced under the Obama administration.
It was the Obama White House encompassing the-then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that engineered and implemented the destruction of the North African state of Libya. This country had been the most prosperous in Africa under the Jamahiriya system of governance led by Col. Muammar Gaddafi. Although the African Union (AU) Commission had drafted a plan for the resolution of the Libyan situation on March 8, 2011, the UN Security Council passed two resolutions, 1970 and 1973, which provided the pseudo-legal rationale for the blanket-bombing of this country beginning on March 19 and extending through October 31. In its aftermath tens of thousands had been killed, millions displaced and rendered jobless and poor, and Gaddafi, the leader of Libya for 42 years, was extra-judicially executed. Secretary of State Clinton laughed about his lynching by paraphrasing the Roman conqueror Julius Caesar’s letter to the Roman Senate, saying “we came, we saw, he died.”
Since 2011, Libya has become the center of destabilization along with human trafficking. There is no clearly identifiable government in Libya since the UN-crafted Government of National Accord (GNA) is being challenged by forces in the East, West and South of the country. Battles over the control of oil production and access to the Mediterranean are being waged daily inside the beleaguered state.
This call for discussions around the withdrawal from the UN parallels similar issues involving the so-called International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Netherlands. The ICC is solely concerned with capturing and prosecuting Africans and has completely ignored those governments which over the last three decades or more have systematically broken Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Haiti, Sudan, and Colombia as well as imposed draconian sanctions on Zimbabwe since the beginning of this century.
For those who do not wish to alter the existing international status-quo of Western domination and its deadly consequences, “President Mugabe said although the issue had been widely discussed, some cowardice African Heads of State were afraid of implementing the move for fear of reprisal by the West. He said fellow African countries needed to be courageous if they were to take the West head-on and make bold demands.”
“Oppositional Press” Continues to Carry Torch for Imperialism
A clear illustration of the “cowardice” that President Mugabe decries is exemplified in the Western imperialist-backed opposition media in Zimbabwe. In an editorial published in News Day, it dismisses the call for African independence and self-assertion as a product of a passed era. This opinion piece was signed by Ken Yamamoto who begins by quoting the right-wing and racist founder of 20th century automotive production Henry Ford who joked that thinking is difficult and therefore few engage. (September 26)
Yamamoto suggests that western-backed African leaders today have more vision than the Zimbabwean leader and former AU chairperson. This author says “Mugabe wants to be recognized as a man with a cause, but an esoteric cause unfortunately. He wants to play the role of that swashbuckling pan-Africanist — the only remaining one carrying the torch of a bygone generation.”
Such an editorial thrust clearly exposes what is described as the “independent” press marketed to Zimbabwe and the world. One must ask: “independent” of what? A publication ostensibly based in Zimbabwe which argues against the genuine independence, sovereignty and unity of the continent can only be working on behalf of imperialism.
Those African states which have partnered with AFRICOM, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S. State Department, the European Union (EU) and NATO to undermine the stability and viability of their own governments and people must be condemned for what they truly are, fifth columnists for the “bygone” era of colonialism and European supremacy.
These wars of regime-change and genocidal plunder have displaced 60-75 million people according to the UN Refugee Agency. Any forward-looking leader in Africa today must realize that to maintain the contemporary division of labor and international relations will only destabilize the region further.
The only viable solution is to demand the inherent right of African people to enjoy the natural wealth and human capital that is contingent upon any sustainable development program. Any other approach only confines the continent to decades more of instability, underdevelopment, sectional divisions and marginalization in global affairs.
The recent UN Security Council meeting that the Russia-US deal on de-escalation of the Syrian conflict has collapsed without any significant chances to be re-launched in the nearest future. The US-led Western block just continued to blame Russia and Syria for violating the ceasefire agreement, causing ‘barbarism’ and committing ‘war crimes’ and pressure on the so-called “moderate opposition” accidentally led by Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra or Al-Nusra Front).
In turn, Russia said that the United States has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Geneva deal and the US-backed groups remain embed with designated terrorist organizations across the country. Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin emphasized that Moscow has tired to make concessions and all 48 hours or 72 hours ceasefires “ended in militants’ regrouping, receiving reinforcement and staging new offensives.” So, there will be no more unilateral steps in this conflict. The American side, in his words, “has actually acknowledged its inability to influence the groups it controls and honestly implement the agreements,” first of all, to separate moderate groups from terrorists and “draw relevant division lines on the ground.”
When Syria’s UN ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, was called to speak, representatives from the United States, Britain and France all walked out in protest. Jaafari said that supporting militants in Syria, Western nations are encouraging terrorism and the Syrian government will liberate Aleppo city, ignoring displeasure of the US-led anti-Assad block.
As SouthFront forecasted, the peace initiative, which has not been supported by a full military defeat of terrorists on the ground in Syria, has not led to significant changes in the conflict. Now, the military situation in Aleppo city is in the focus of attention.
If the Syrian government and its allies are able to make significant gains inside and outside the city and deliver a devastating blow to terrorist groups operating in the area, there will be a chance of further negotiations and at least partial separation of the so-called ‘moderate opposition’ from the terrorists. It’s pretty easy to separate from the entity that does not exist. In other cases, we will observe the continuation of the ongoing geopolitical standoff with uncertain result.
If the British Empire was built on the playing fields of Eton, United States world hegemony gets its training in Hollywood studios and advertising agencies. Selling your product, or yourself, by looking sincere is a cultivated American art. Current top U.S. leaders are expert practitioners.
In the space of a few days, Samantha Power, John Kerry, and Barack Obama all turned in war-winning performances.
Three Deadly U.S. Blows to Hopes of Peace In Syria
Last August 8, on that serious think tank the Charlie Rose show, former acting CIA director Michael Morell said that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price”. Russians and Iranians should be killed “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it”, he said. Morell proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, in order to “scare Assad”. Probably angling for a good job next year, he is on record supporting Hillary Clinton as a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” in Syria.
Act I – An Act of War
Then, on Saturday, September 17, the U.S. Air Force did exactly what that CIA insider had called for. In sustained air strikes, four U.S. jets bombed a key Syrian Army position that had been defending the town of Deir ez-Zor from ISIS/Daech fighters. More than sixty Syrian soldiers were killed and over a hundred wounded. Daech forces immediately took advantage of the strikes to overrun the government position. In effect, the U.S. Air Force acted as air cover for the Islamic fanatics U.S. to advance against the legitimate army of Syria.
This was not only a violation of the cease-fire painstakingly worked out by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. It was an open military aggression by the United States on the territory of a sovereign state.
The Russians immediately called an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to respond to this deadly violation of the truce supposedly intended to facilitate peace negotiations and humanitarian aid. When Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin took the floor to speak, his American counterpart, Samantha Power, draped in her long red mane, walked out to give a press conference that clearly illustrated the difference between Russian and U.S. diplomacy.
Churkin, like Lavrov a few days later, cited facts and analysed the situation rationally. Samantha Power put on a show of evasion and insults.
Why all the fuss? was her opening theme. After all, we halted the attack when we were informed that “it was possible we might be hitting Syrian regime personnel and vehicles”, she stated, adding that “if” we did so, “that was not our intention”. That should settle the question; who could believe that the United States might deliberately attack the regime their politicians have been saying “must go”?
The best defense is offensive, and Power can be most offensive:
“Even by Russia’s standards, tonight’s stunt – replete with moralism and grandstanding is uniquely cynical and hypocritical”, she declared.
Samantha Power, that conniving arriviste whose carefully constructed career has been built on moralism, grandstanding, cynicism and hypocrisy, had all the nerve in the world to turn these epithets against the prime target of her own habitual moralism, grandstanding, cynicism and hypocrisy.
If the air strikes hadn’t been enough to destroy Russian confidence in dealing with the United States, Samantha Power’s contemptuous reaction was sure to do the trick.
Act II – Change the Subject
Next ploy: change the subject. Our little accidental bombing is nothing, Power implied, compared to the alleged fact that “since 2011 the Assad regime has intentionally been striking civilian targets with horrifying, predictable regularity”. Here is the core of the Samantha Power fraud, containing two elements:
1/ While good-hearted bumbling America occasionally kills a few people by accident, the others do it all the time and above allintentionally.
2/ Killing civilians is what war is all about. War is not about battles between armed forces for control of territory. It is not about geopolitical power struggles. It is about “civilian victims”.
At the close of her stunt, grandstanding and scoring cheap points, Samantha Power exhorted Russia “to stop the cheap point scoring and the grandstanding and the stunts and focus on what matters, which is implementation of something we negotiated in good faith with them.” Good faith? They are supposed to believe we negotiated “in good faith” an agreement which we just flagrantly destroyed?
Lo and behold, only two days after the U.S. bombing of Deie ez-Zor, the subject was definitively changed when an international humanitarian aid convoy was attacked on its way to Aleppo. Twenty aid workers were killed and the aid mission was halted. Without waiting for any evidence, the unanimous cry went up from Washington that “the Russians did it!”
In the U.N. Security Council this time, John Kerry took the stage. Again, the critical point was the contrast between what we certainly did and what they allegedly did. Yes, we committed “a terrible accident”. But what they (allegedly) did was worse.
“I got to tell you, people running around with guns on the ground, from the air, is a very different thing from trucks in a convoy with big UN markings all over them,” Kerry declared. He was implying that the difference was between an understandable accident, whose victims were “running around with guns”, and an attack on civilians. Yes, but in war, attacking soldiers is the whole point. It can make a difference in the outcome. Hitting an aid convoy is “collateral damage”, as the U.S. calls it when the bombs are American. By bombing Deir ez-Zor, the United States was taking part in a war in which Syria is fighting for its life.
It cannot be ruled out that Syrian forces attacked the aid convoy because the truce was already broken at Deir ez-Zor and they believed it concealed weapons being transported to Daech. Such things happen. Or the attack could have been carried out by rebels as an act of propaganda, a “false flag”, designed precisely to be used to accuse the adversary. Such things also happen.
It has already been established by careful research that the notorious Al Ghouta chemical weapons attack, attributed to Assad, was almost certainly carried out by rebels precisely in order to incite the United States to cross the “red line” set by President Obama and bomb Damascus. The War Party which by now controls the Pentagon, much of the State Department, most of Congress, as well as leading media and think tanks, has been castigating Obama ever since for not having seized that opportunity to wage a full-scale “regime change” war against Syria. The critics have never forgiven Obama for accepting the Russian proposal to use the occasion to rid Syria of its chemical arsenal, instead of overthrowing the Syrian government.
But in recent weeks, as the Hillary Clinton campaign grows more frantic, Obama himself has joined the War Party.
Act III – Wallow in Sentimentality
On September 20, President Obama used a Leaders Summit on Refugees to portray the Syrian episode in what increasing appears to be World War III as a sentimental children’s story. Obama read the letter from 6-year-old Alex, who lives in Scarsdale, New York, expressing his wish to adopt Omran Daqneesh, the bewildered 5-year-old boy with a mop of dusty hair whose photo sitting in an orange ambulance seat was iconized across the world. The letter, provided to mass media by the White House, with its childish writing but nearly perfect spelling, was full of touching details about butterfly collections and shared toys. Obama read the letter, as people reached for Kleenexes all over the country, and then commented:
Those are the words of a six-year-old boy – a young child you has not learned to be cynical, or suspicious, or fearful of other people because of where they come from, how they look, or how they pray. We should all be more like Alex. Imagine what the world would look like if we were.
The little boys are very cute, very sweet. Fortunately, Omran Daneesh’s parents are alive, so there is no need to adopt him. Many other children are dead, notably in Yemen, killed by Washington’s ally Saudi Arabia with arms provided by the United States. Too late to adopt them.
“We should all be more like Alex”, Obama tells his good people. Imagine indeed, if all Americans were as innocent and naïve as six-year-old children. And indeed, that seems to be the goal of government propaganda.
This propagandistic heartstring tugging is aimed at distracting from U.S. involvement in a long-term joint criminal enterprise to overthrow a government that indeed did not discriminate against people because of “how they pray”, and replace it by fanatics who are ready to behead people because of “how they pray”.
An infantilized public will believe that “geopolitics” and “national sovereignty” are just big words that don’t mean anything. An infantilized public will believe that when the United States goes to war, it is all about protecting little children from their bad, mean dictators, whose only aspiration is to “bomb their own people”. They will believe that the world out there is Little Red Riding Hood, threatened by the Big Bad Wolf, and that there really is a Santa Claus.
It will never occur to an infantilized public that the war to destroy Syria has been planned for years – even though someone like General Wesley Clark revealed this years ago. Or that it is carried out to eliminate Israel’s enemies, keep Arabs busy killing each other, and incidentally help Saudi Arabia spread its Wahhabite fanaticism. No, that will never occur to them.
They won’t even notice that the Obama administration has now effectively given up any effort to justify the Nobel Peace Prize so foolishly bestowed on the apprentice president, and is now engaged in a scenario designed to prepare for Hillary’s next successful regime change war in Syria.
And it won’t occur to them that the photo of the little boy in the orange seat was quite deliberately iconized by Western media as part of the campaign promoting the Islamic rebel-connected “White Helmets” for the future Nobel Peace Prize.
Another subtle step in demonizing the “Assad regime” before Hillary takes over to administer the planned coup de grace. The future chuckler-in-chief is looking forward to seeing another head fall. This is called “smart power”.
The Neocon war hawks have embroiled the United States in illegal wars of aggression around the globe, and with the possibility of a Clinton presidency, that reign of terror looks set to continue.
But a series of lawsuits are challenging the neocons in the courts and threatening to derail that agenda. This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.
Global Research is bringing this transcript of the presidential to the attention of our readers strictly for purposes of information.
LESTER HOLT: Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I’m Lester Holt, anchor of “NBC Nightly News.” I want to welcome you to the first presidential debate.
The participants tonight are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight’s format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns.
The 90-minute debate is divided into six segments, each 15 minutes long. We’ll explore three topic areas tonight: Achieving prosperity; America’s direction; and securing America. At the start of each segment, I will ask the same lead-off question to both candidates, and they will each have up to two minutes to respond. From that point until the end of the segment, we’ll have an open discussion.
The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns. The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying.
I will invite you to applaud, however, at this moment, as we welcome the candidates: Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: How are you, Donald?
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Good luck to you.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, I don’t expect us to cover all the issues of this campaign tonight, but I remind everyone, there are two more presidential debates scheduled. We are going to focus on many of the issues that voters tell us are most important, and we’re going to press for specifics. I am honored to have this role, but this evening belongs to the candidates and, just as important, to the American people.
Candidates, we look forward to hearing you articulate your policies and your positions, as well as your visions and your values. So, let’s begin.
We’re calling this opening segment “Achieving Prosperity.” And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There’s been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
Beginning with you, Secretary Clinton, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American works?
CLINTON: Well, thank you, Lester, and thanks to Hofstra for hosting us.
The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we’ll build together. Today is my granddaughter’s second birthday, so I think about this a lot. First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. That means we need new jobs, good jobs, with rising incomes.
I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women’s work.
CLINTON: I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.
And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work. I’ve heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you’re under. So let’s have paid family leave, earned sick days.Let’s be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college.
How are we going to do it? We’re going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes.
Finally, we tonight are on the stage together, Donald Trump and I. Donald, it’s good to be with you. We’re going to have a debate where we are talking about the important issues facing our country. You have to judge us, who can shoulder the immense, awesome responsibilities of the presidency, who can put into action the plans that will make your life better. I hope that I will be able to earn your vote on November 8th.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, thank you.
Mr. Trump, the same question to you. It’s about putting money — more money into the pockets of American workers. You have up to two minutes.
TRUMP: Thank you, Lester. Our jobs are fleeing the country. They’re going to Mexico. They’re going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They’re devaluing their currency, and there’s nobody in our government to fight them. And we have a very good fight. And we have a winning fight. Because they’re using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing.
So we’re losing our good jobs, so many of them. When you look at what’s happening in Mexico, a friend of mine who builds plants said it’s the eighth wonder of the world. They’re building some of the biggest plants anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the United States, as he said, not so much.
So Ford is leaving. You see that, their small car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They’re all leaving. And we can’t allow it to happen anymore. As far as child care is concerned and so many other things, I think Hillary and I agree on that. We probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts and what we’re going to do, but perhaps we’ll be talking about that later.
But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States and, with it, firing all of their people. All you have to do is take a look at Carrier air conditioning in Indianapolis. They left — fired 1,400 people. They’re going to Mexico. So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this.
TRUMP: We cannot let it happen. Under my plan, I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan. It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.
Companies will come. They will build. They will expand. New companies will start. And I look very, very much forward to doing it. We have to renegotiate our trade deals, and we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond?
CLINTON: Well, I think that trade is an important issue. Of course, we are 5 percent of the world’s population; we have to trade with the other 95 percent. And we need to have smart, fair trade deals.
We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we’ve ever had.
I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that’s exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy.
We just have a different view about what’s best for growing the economy, how we make investments that will actually produce jobs and rising incomes.
I think we come at it from somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that’s all to his benefit. He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there.
I don’t buy that. I have a different experience. My father was a small-businessman.He worked really hard. He printed drapery fabrics on long tables, where he pulled out those fabrics and he went down with a silkscreen and dumped the paint in and took the squeegee and kept going.
And so what I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we’ll grow. That’s the kind of economy I want us to see again.
HOLT: Let me follow up with Mr. Trump, if you can. You’ve talked about creating 25 million jobs, and you’ve promised to bring back millions of jobs for Americans. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labor overseas? How, specifically, are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back?
TRUMP: Well, for one thing — and before we start on that — my father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs.
Our country’s in deep trouble. We don’t know what we’re doing when it comes to devaluations and all of these countries all over the world, especially China. They’re the best, the best ever at it. What they’re doing to us is a very, very sad thing.
So we have to do that. We have to renegotiate our trade deals. And, Lester, they’re taking our jobs, they’re giving incentives, they’re doing things that, frankly, we don’t do.
Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We’re on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell in — automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax. It’s a defective agreement. It’s been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven’t done anything about it.
Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton — yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy. It’s very important to me.
But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently. She’s been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn’t she made the agreements better? The NAFTA agreement is defective. Just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the fact…
HOLT: Let me interrupt just a moment, but…
TRUMP: Secretary Clinton and others, politicians, should have been doing this for years, not right now, because of the fact that we’ve created a movement. They should have been doing this for years. What’s happened to our jobs and our country and our economy generally is — look, we owe $20 trillion. We cannot do it any longer, Lester. HOLT: Back to the question, though. How do you bring back — specifically bring back jobs, American manufacturers? How do you make them bring the jobs back?
TRUMP: Well, the first thing you do is don’t let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of them. They’re leaving, and they’re leaving in bigger numbers than ever.
And what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. But if you think you’re going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you’re wrong.
And once you say you’re going to have to tax them coming in, and our politicians never do this, because they have special interests and the special interests want those companies to leave, because in many cases, they own the companies. So what I’m saying is, we can stop them from leaving. We have to stop them from leaving. And that’s a big, big factor.
HOLT: Let me let Secretary Clinton get in here.
CLINTON: Well, let’s stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.
In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, “Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” Well, it did collapse.
TRUMP: That’s called business, by the way.
CLINTON: Nine million people — nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.
Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we’re now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy, but the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place.
Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession.
They’ve looked at my plans and they’ve said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real.
TRUMP: I did not. I did not. I do not say that.
CLINTON: I think science is real.
TRUMP: I do not say that.
CLINTON: And I think it’s important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here’s what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That’s a lot of jobs; that’s a lot of new economic activity.
So I’ve tried to be very specific about what we can and should do, and I am determined that we’re going to get the economy really moving again, building on the progress we’ve made over the last eight years, but never going back to what got us in trouble in the first place.
HOLT: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one.
Now, look, I’m a great believer in all forms of energy, but we’re putting a lot of people out of work. Our energy policies are a disaster. Our country is losing so much in terms of energy, in terms of paying off our debt. You can’t do what you’re looking to do with $20 trillion in debt.
The Obama administration, from the time they’ve come in, is over 230 years’ worth of debt, and he’s topped it. He’s doubled it in a course of almost eight years, seven-and-a-half years, to be semi- exact.
So I will tell you this. We have to do a much better job at keeping our jobs. And we have to do a much better job at giving companies incentives to build new companies or to expand, because they’re not doing it.
And all you have to do is look at Michigan and look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving, they’re gone.
And, Hillary, I’d just ask you this. You’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you’ve been doing it, and now you’re just starting to think of solutions.
CLINTON: Well, actually…
TRUMP: I will bring — excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can’t bring back jobs.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit.
TRUMP: Yeah, for 30 years.
CLINTON: And I have — well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again…
TRUMP: Well, he approved NAFTA…
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: … million new jobs, a balanced budget…
TRUMP: He approved NAFTA, which is the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.
CLINTON: Incomes went up for everybody. Manufacturing jobs went up also in the 1990s, if we’re actually going to look at the facts.
When I was in the Senate, I had a number of trade deals that came before me, and I held them all to the same test. Will they create jobs in America? Will they raise incomes in America? And are they good for our national security? Some of them I voted for. The biggest one, a multinational one known as CAFTA, I voted against. And because I hold the same standards as I look at all of these trade deals.
But let’s not assume that trade is the only challenge we have in the economy. I think it is a part of it, and I’ve said what I’m going to do. I’m going to have a special prosecutor. We’re going to enforce the trade deals we have, and we’re going to hold people accountable.
When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs.
HOLT: Very quickly…
TRUMP: But you haven’t done it in 30 years or 26 years or any number you want to…
CLINTON: Well, I’ve been a senator, Donald…
TRUMP: You haven’t done it. You haven’t done it.
CLINTON: And I have been a secretary of state…
TRUMP: Excuse me.
CLINTON: And I have done a lot…
TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.
CLINTON: Well, that’s your opinion. That is your opinion.
TRUMP: You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country.
And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can’t win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in…
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it’s the finest deal you’ve ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are — I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated…
TRUMP: Not.
CLINTON: … which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn’t. I wrote about that in my book…
TRUMP: So is it President Obama’s fault?
CLINTON: … before you even announced.
TRUMP: Is it President Obama’s fault?
CLINTON: Look, there are differences…
TRUMP: Secretary, is it President Obama’s fault?
CLINTON: There are…
TRUMP: Because he’s pushing it.
CLINTON: There are different views about what’s good for our country, our economy, and our leadership in the world. And I think it’s important to look at what we need to do to get the economy going again. That’s why I said new jobs with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add $5 trillion to the debt.
TRUMP: But you have no plan.
CLINTON: But in — oh, but I do.
TRUMP: Secretary, you have no plan.
CLINTON: In fact, I have written a book about it. It’s called “Stronger Together.” You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore…
TRUMP: That’s about all you’ve…
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: Folks, we’re going to…
CLINTON: … or at an airport near you.
HOLT: We’re going to move to…
CLINTON: But it’s because I see this — we need to have strong growth, fair growth, sustained growth. We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business.
So we have a very robust set of plans. And people have looked at both of our plans, have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us 3.5 million jobs, and explode the debt which would have a recession.
TRUMP: You are going to approve one of the biggest tax cuts in history. You are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history. You are going to drive business out. Your regulations are a disaster, and you’re going to increase regulations all over the place.
And by the way, my tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I’m very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.
When I go around — Lester, I tell you this, I’ve been all over. And when I go around, despite the tax cut, the thing — the things that business as in people like the most is the fact that I’m cutting regulation. You have regulations on top of regulations, and new companies cannot form and old companies are going out of business. And you want to increase the regulations and make them even worse.
I’m going to cut regulations. I’m going to cut taxes big league, and you’re going to raise taxes big league, end of story.
HOLT: Let me get you to pause right there, because we’re going to move into — we’re going to move into the next segment. We’re going to talk taxes…
CLINTON: That can’t — that can’t be left to stand.
HOLT: Please just take 30 seconds and then we’re going to go on.
CLINTON: I kind of assumed that there would be a lot of these charges and claims, and so…
TRUMP: Facts.
CLINTON: So we have taken the home page of my website, HillaryClinton.com, and we’ve turned it into a fact-checker. So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look. Because what I have proposed…
TRUMP: And take a look at mine, also, and you’ll see.
CLINTON: … would not add a penny to the debt, and your plans would add $5 trillion to the debt. What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses. What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. And I think it’s time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country.
HOLT: Well, you just opened the next segment.
TRUMP: Well, could I just finish — I think I…
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: I’m going to give you a chance right here…
TRUMP: I think I should — you go to her website, and you take a look at her website.
HOLT: … with a new 15-minute segment…
TRUMP: She’s going to raise taxes $1.3 trillion.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, I’m going to…
TRUMP: And look at her website. You know what? It’s no difference than this. She’s telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don’t think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.
HOLT: The next segment, we’re continuing…
CLINTON: Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS.
HOLT: … achieving prosperity…
TRUMP: No, no, you’re telling the enemy everything you want to do.
CLINTON: No, we’re not. No, we’re not.
TRUMP: See, you’re telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you’ve been fighting — no wonder you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.
CLINTON: That’s a — that’s — go to the — please, fact checkers, get to work.
HOLT: OK, you are unpacking a lot here. And we’re still on the issue of achieving prosperity. And I want to talk about taxes. The fundamental difference between the two of you concerns the wealthy.
Secretary Clinton, you’re calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I’d like you to further defend that. And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to defend that. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Well, I’m really calling for major jobs, because the wealthy are going create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies. They’re going to do a tremendous job.
I’m getting rid of the carried interest provision. And if you really look, it’s not a tax — it’s really not a great thing for the wealthy. It’s a great thing for the middle class. It’s a great thing for companies to expand.
And when these people are going to put billions and billions of dollars into companies, and when they’re going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, where they can’t bring the money back, because politicians like Secretary Clinton won’t allow them to bring the money back, because the taxes are so onerous, and the bureaucratic red tape, so what — is so bad.
So what they’re doing is they’re leaving our country, and they’re, believe it or not, leaving because taxes are too high and because some of them have lots of money outside of our country. And instead of bringing it back and putting the money to work, because they can’t work out a deal to — and everybody agrees it should be brought back.
Instead of that, they’re leaving our country to get their money, because they can’t bring their money back into our country, because of bureaucratic red tape, because they can’t get together. Because we have — we have a president that can’t sit them around a table and get them to approve something.
And here’s the thing. Republicans and Democrats agree that this should be done, $2.5 trillion. I happen to think it’s double that. It’s probably $5 trillion that we can’t bring into our country, Lester. And with a little leadership, you’d get it in here very quickly, and it could be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.
But we have no leadership. And honestly, that starts with Secretary Clinton.
HOLT: All right. You have two minutes of the same question to defend tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I’m going to be blamed for everything that’s ever happened.
TRUMP: Why not?
CLINTON: Why not? Yeah, why not?
(LAUGHTER)
You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things. Now, let me say this, it is absolutely the case…
TRUMP: There’s nothing crazy about not letting our companies bring their money back into their country.
HOLT: This is — this is Secretary Clinton’s two minutes, please.
TRUMP: Yes.
CLINTON: Yeah, well, let’s start the clock again, Lester. We’ve looked at your tax proposals. I don’t see changes in the corporate tax rates or the kinds of proposals you’re referring to that would cause the repatriation, bringing back of money that’s stranded overseas. I happen to support that.
TRUMP: Then you didn’t read it.
CLINTON: I happen to — I happen to support that in a way that will actually work to our benefit. But when I look at what you have proposed, you have what is called now the Trump loophole, because it would so advantage you and the business you do. You’ve proposed an approach that has a…
TRUMP: Who gave it that name? The first I’ve — who gave it that name?
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: Mr. Trump, this is Secretary Clinton’s two minutes.
CLINTON: … $4 billion tax benefit for your family. And when you look at what you are proposing…
TRUMP: How much? How much for my family? CLINTON: … it is…
TRUMP: Lester, how much?
CLINTON: … as I said, trumped-up trickle-down. Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked.
And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class.
CLINTON: I don’t think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their — their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, we’re…
TRUMP: Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what’s going on.
Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We’re in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that’s going to come crashing down.
We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political — by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, we’re talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to — who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don’t Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?
TRUMP: I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.
But you will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a 104-page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. It shows income — in fact, the income — I just looked today — the income is filed at $694 million for this past year, $694 million. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised.
But that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs. When we have a country that’s doing so badly, that’s being ripped off by every single country in the world, it’s the kind of thinking that our country needs, because everybody — Lester, we have a trade deficit with all of the countries that we do business with, of almost $800 billion a year. You know what that is? That means, who’s negotiating these trade deals?
We have people that are political hacks negotiating our trade deals.
HOLT: The IRS says an audit…
TRUMP: Excuse me.
HOLT: … of your taxes — you’re perfectly free to release your taxes during an audit. And so the question, does the public’s right to know outweigh your personal…
TRUMP: Well, I told you, I will release them as soon as the audit. Look, I’ve been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, do you get audited? I get audited almost every year.
And in a way, I should be complaining. I’m not even complaining. I don’t mind it. It’s almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don’t.
I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s wishes — when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.
(APPLAUSE)
I will release my tax returns. And that’s against — my lawyers, they say, “Don’t do it.” I will tell you this. No — in fact, watching shows, they’re reading the papers. Almost every lawyer says, you don’t release your returns until the audit’s complete. When the audit’s complete, I’ll do it. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails.
HOLT: So it’s negotiable?
TRUMP: It’s not negotiable, no. Let her release the e-mails. Why did she delete 33,000…
HOLT: Well, I’ll let her answer that. But let me just admonish the audience one more time. There was an agreement. We did ask you to be silent, so it would be helpful for us. Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I think you’ve seen another example of bait-and- switch here. For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. You can go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years of our tax returns, but everyone has done it. We know the IRS has made clear there is no prohibition on releasing it when you’re under audit.
So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be.
CLINTON: Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody’s ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.
TRUMP: That makes me smart.
CLINTON: So if he’s paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably he’s not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that he’s trying to hide.
And the financial disclosure statements, they don’t give you the tax rate. They don’t give you all the details that tax returns would. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see. And I have no reason to believe that he’s ever going to release his tax returns, because there’s something he’s hiding.
And we’ll guess. We’ll keep guessing at what it might be that he’s hiding. But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them.
HOLT: He also — he also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?
CLINTON: I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail. TRUMP: That’s for sure.
CLINTON: And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.
HOLT: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK? That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it’s — really thinks it’s disgraceful, also.
As far as my tax returns, you don’t learn that much from tax returns. That I can tell you. You learn a lot from financial disclosure. And you should go down and take a look at that.
The other thing, I’m extremely underleveraged. The report that said $650 — which, by the way, a lot of friends of mine that know my business say, boy, that’s really not a lot of money. It’s not a lot of money relative to what I had.
The buildings that were in question, they said in the same report, which was — actually, it wasn’t even a bad story, to be honest with you, but the buildings are worth $3.9 billion. And the $650 isn’t even on that. But it’s not $650. It’s much less than that.
But I could give you a list of banks, I would — if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly.
I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. It’s because it’s about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.
When we have $20 trillion in debt, and our country’s a mess, you know, it’s one thing to have $20 trillion in debt and our roads are good and our bridges are good and everything’s in great shape, our airports. Our airports are like from a third world country.
You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark, and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible — you come in from China, you see these incredible airports, and you land — we’ve become a third world country.
So the worst of all things has happened. We owe $20 trillion, and we’re a mess. We haven’t even started. And we’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, according to a report that I just saw. Whether it’s 6 or 5, but it looks like it’s 6, $6 trillion in the Middle East, we could have rebuilt our country twice.
And it’s really a shame. And it’s politicians like Secretary Clinton that have caused this problem. Our country has tremendous problems. We’re a debtor nation. We’re a serious debtor nation. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don’t have the money, because it’s been squandered on so many of your ideas.
HOLT: We’ll let you respond and we’ll move on to the next segment.
CLINTON: And maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years. (APPLAUSE)
And the other thing I think is important…
TRUMP: It would be squandered, too, believe me.
CLINTON: … is if your — if your main claim to be president of the United States is your business, then I think we should talk about that. You know, your campaign manager said that you built a lot of businesses on the backs of little guys.
And, indeed, I have met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald. I’ve met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do.
We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It’s a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use. And you wouldn’t pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do…
TRUMP: Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work…
CLINTON: Well, to…
TRUMP: Which our country should do, too.
CLINTON: Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology from someone who has taken their labor, taken the goods that they produced, and then refused to pay them?
I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you. He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides.
And when we talk about your business, you’ve taken business bankruptcy six times. There are a lot of great businesspeople that have never taken bankruptcy once. You call yourself the King of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.
TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.
CLINTON: Well, sometimes there’s not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government.
HOLT: Let’s let Mr. Trump…
CLINTON: And we need to be very clear about that.
TRUMP: So, yeah, I think — I do think it’s time. Look, it’s all words, it’s all sound bites. I built an unbelievable company. Some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, real estate assets anywhere in the world, beyond the United States, in Europe, lots of different places. It’s an unbelievable company.
But on occasion, four times, we used certain laws that are there. And when Secretary Clinton talks about people that didn’t get paid, first of all, they did get paid a lot, but taken advantage of the laws of the nation.
Now, if you want to change the laws, you’ve been there a long time, change the laws. But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.
But what she doesn’t say is that tens of thousands of people that are unbelievably happy and that love me. I’ll give you an example. We’re just opening up on Pennsylvania Avenue right next to the White House, so if I don’t get there one way, I’m going to get to Pennsylvania Avenue another.
But we’re opening the Old Post Office. Under budget, ahead of schedule, saved tremendous money. I’m a year ahead of schedule. And that’s what this country should be doing.
We build roads and they cost two and three and four times what they’re supposed to cost. We buy products for our military and they come in at costs that are so far above what they were supposed to be, because we don’t have people that know what they’re doing.
When we look at the budget, the budget is bad to a large extent because we have people that have no idea as to what to do and how to buy. The Trump International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country.
HOLT: Well, we’re well behind schedule, so I want to move to our next segment. We move into our next segment talking about America’s direction. And let’s start by talking about race.
The share of Americans who say race relations are bad in this country is the highest it’s been in decades, much of it amplified by shootings of African-Americans by police, as we’ve seen recently in Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap.
So how do you heal the divide? Secretary Clinton, you get two minutes on this.
CLINTON: Well, you’re right. Race remains a significant challenge in our country. Unfortunately, race still determines too much, often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they’re treated in the criminal justice system. We’ve just seen those two tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.
And we’ve got to do several things at the same time. We have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they’re well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law.
CLINTON: Right now, that’s not the case in a lot of our neighborhoods. So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform. I’ve laid out a platform that I think would begin to remedy some of the problems we have in the criminal justice system.
But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform. So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that as a mutual goal. And we’ve got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.
HOLT: All right, Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. How do you heal the divide?
TRUMP: Well, first of all, Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order. And we need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.
And when I look at what’s going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments, when I look at what’s going on throughout various parts of our country, whether it’s — I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long — we need law and order in our country.
I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just — just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very — I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.
We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in he’ll because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.
In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st.Thousands of shootings. And I’m saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over — almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order.
Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.
We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant.
We have to be — we have to know what we’re doing. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated.
HOLT: Your two — your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.
TRUMP: No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.
HOLT: The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling.
TRUMP: No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn’t have them.
These are felons. These are people that are bad people that shouldn’t be — when you have 3,000 shootings in Chicago from January 1st, when you have 4,000 people killed in Chicago by guns, from the beginning of the presidency of Barack Obama, his hometown, you have to have stop-and-frisk.
You need more police. You need a better community, you know, relation. You don’t have good community relations in Chicago. It’s terrible. I have property there. It’s terrible what’s going on in Chicago.
But when you look — and Chicago’s not the only — you go to Ferguson, you go to so many different places. You need better relationships. I agree with Secretary Clinton on this.
TRUMP: You need better relationships between the communities and the police, because in some cases, it’s not good.
But you look at Dallas, where the relationships were really studied, the relationships were really a beautiful thing, and then five police officers were killed one night very violently. So there’s some bad things going on. Some really bad things.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton…
TRUMP: But we need — Lester, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what’s happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it’s very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I’ve heard — I’ve heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it’s really unfortunate that he paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country.
TRUMP: Ugh.
CLINTON: You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids. There’s a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up.
But we do always have to make sure we keep people safe. There are the right ways of doing it, and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do.
Now, I believe in community policing. And, in fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don’t want to see it creep back up. We’ve had 25 years of very good cooperation.
But there were some problems, some unintended consequences. Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we’ve got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say — we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little.
We need to have more second chance programs. I’m glad that we’re ending private prisons in the federal system; I want to see them ended in the state system. You shouldn’t have a profit motivation to fill prison cells with young Americans. So there are some positive ways we can work on this.
And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now — and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby — right now, we’ve got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.
And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, last week, you said we’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?
CLINTON: Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way?
But when it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.
I’ve met with a group of very distinguished, experienced police chiefs a few weeks ago. They admit it’s an issue. They’ve got a lot of concerns. Mental health is one of the biggest concerns, because now police are having to handle a lot of really difficult mental health problems on the street.
CLINTON: They want support, they want more training, they want more assistance. And I think the federal government could be in a position where we would offer and provide that.
HOLT: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: I’d like to respond to that.
HOLT: Please.
TRUMP: First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I’m very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they’re protecting the Second Amendment.
But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn’t be on there, we’ll help them, we’ll help them legally, we’ll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.
I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words super-predator about young black youth. And that’s a term that I think was a — it’s — it’s been horribly met, as you know. I think you’ve apologized for it. But I think it was a terrible thing to say.
And when it comes to stop-and-frisk, you know, you’re talking about takes guns away. Well, I’m talking about taking guns away from gangs and people that use them. And I don’t think — I really don’t think you disagree with me on this, if you want to know the truth.
I think maybe there’s a political reason why you can’t say it, but I really don’t believe — in New York City, stop-and-frisk, we had 2,200 murders, and stop-and-frisk brought it down to 500 murders. Five hundred murders is a lot of murders. It’s hard to believe, 500 is like supposed to be good?
But we went from 2,200 to 500. And it was continued on by Mayor Bloomberg. And it was terminated by current mayor. But stop-and- frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City. Tremendous beyond belief. So when you say it has no impact, it really did. It had a very, very big impact.
CLINTON: Well, it’s also fair to say, if we’re going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor, crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is…
TRUMP: No, you’re wrong. You’re wrong.
CLINTON: No, I’m not.
TRUMP: Murders are up. All right. You check it.
CLINTON: New York — New York has done an excellent job. And I give credit — I give credit across the board going back two mayors, two police chiefs, because it has worked. And other communities need to come together to do what will work, as well.
Look, one murder is too many. But it is important that we learn about what has been effective. And not go to things that sound good that really did not have the kind of impact that we would want. Who disagrees with keeping neighborhoods safe?
But let’s also add, no one should disagree about respecting the rights of young men who live in those neighborhoods. And so we need to do a better job of working, again, with the communities, faith communities, business communities, as well as the police to try to deal with this problem.
HOLT: This conversation is about race. And so, Mr. Trump, I have to ask you for five…
TRUMP: I’d like to just respond, if I might.
HOLT: Please — 20 seconds.
TRUMP: I’d just like to respond.
HOLT: Please respond, then I’ve got a quick follow-up for you.
TRUMP: I will. Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they said, see ya later, I’ll see you in four years.
The African-American community — because — look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated. They’ve been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians, because that’s what it is. They’ve controlled these communities for up to 100 years.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, let me…
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Well, I — I do think…
TRUMP: And I will tell you, you look at the inner cities — and I just left Detroit, and I just left Philadelphia, and I just — you know, you’ve seen me, I’ve been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that’s OK. But I will tell you, I’ve been all over. And I’ve met some of the greatest people I’ll ever meet within these communities. And they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, I…
CLINTON: I think — I think — I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?
TRUMP: I’ll tell you very — well, just very simple to say. Sidney Blumenthal works for the campaign and close — very close friend of Secretary Clinton. And her campaign manager, Patti Doyle, went to — during the campaign, her campaign against President Obama, fought very hard. And you can go look it up, and you can check it out.
TRUMP: And if you look at CNN this past week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf Blitzer saying that this happened. Blumenthal sent McClatchy, highly respected reporter at McClatchy, to Kenya to find out about it. They were pressing it very hard. She failed to get the birth certificate.
When I got involved, I didn’t fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. So I’m satisfied with it. And I’ll tell you why I’m satisfied with it.
HOLT: That was…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Because I want to get on to defeating ISIS, because I want to get on to creating jobs, because I want to get on to having a strong border, because I want to get on to things that are very important to me and that are very important to the country.
HOLT: I will let you respond. It’s important. But I just want to get the answer here. The birth certificate was produced in 2011. You’ve continued to tell the story and question the president’s legitimacy in 2012, ’13, ’14, ’15…
TRUMP: Yeah.
HOLT: …. as recently as January. So the question is, what changed your mind?
TRUMP: Well, nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it. I figured you’d ask the question tonight, of course. But nobody was caring much about it. But I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate. And I think I did a good job.
Secretary Clinton also fought it. I mean, you know — now, everybody in mainstream is going to say, oh, that’s not true. Look, it’s true. Sidney Blumenthal sent a reporter — you just have to take a look at CNN, the last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved. But just like she can’t bring back jobs, she can’t produce.
HOLT: I’m sorry. I’m just going to follow up — and I will let you respond to that, because there’s a lot there. But we’re talking about racial healing in this segment. What do you say to Americans, people of color who…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Well, it was very — I say nothing. I say nothing, because I was able to get him to produce it. He should have produced it a long time before. I say nothing.
But let me just tell you. When you talk about healing, I think that I’ve developed very, very good relationships over the last little while with the African-American community. I think you can see that.
And I feel that they really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, just listen to what you heard.
(LAUGHTER)
And clearly, as Donald just admitted, he knew he was going to stand on this debate stage, and Lester Holt was going to be asking us questions, so he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed.
But it can’t be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it.
But, remember, Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department.
So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior. And the birther lie was a very hurtful one. You know, Barack Obama is a man of great dignity. And I could tell how much it bothered him and annoyed him that this was being touted and used against him.
But I like to remember what Michelle Obama said in her amazing speech at our Democratic National Convention: When they go low, we go high. And Barack Obama went high, despite Donald Trump’s best efforts to bring him down.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, you can respond and we’re going to move on to the next segment.
TRUMP: I would love to respond. First of all, I got to watch in preparing for this some of your debates against Barack Obama. You treated him with terrible disrespect. And I watched the way you talk now about how lovely everything is and how wonderful you are. It doesn’t work that way. You were after him, you were trying to — you even sent out or your campaign sent out pictures of him in a certain garb, very famous pictures. I don’t think you can deny that.
But just last week, your campaign manager said it was true. So when you tried to act holier than thou, it really doesn’t work. It really doesn’t.
Now, as far as the lawsuit, yes, when I was very young, I went into my father’s company, had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens, and we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country — it was a federal lawsuit — were sued. We settled the suit with zero — with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do.
TRUMP: I notice you bring that up a lot. And, you know, I also notice the very nasty commercials that you do on me in so many different ways, which I don’t do on you. Maybe I’m trying to save the money.
But, frankly, I look — I look at that, and I say, isn’t that amazing? Because I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt, but that was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms, and it’s just one of those things.
I’ll go one step further. In Palm Beach, Florida, tough community, a brilliant community, a wealthy community, probably the wealthiest community there is in the world, I opened a club, and really got great credit for it. No discrimination against African- Americans, against Muslims, against anybody. And it’s a tremendously successful club. And I’m so glad I did it. And I have been given great credit for what I did. And I’m very, very proud of it. And that’s the way I feel. That is the true way I feel.
HOLT: Our next segment is called “Securing America.” We want to start with a 21st century war happening every day in this country. Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?
Secretary Clinton, this answer goes to you.
CLINTON: Well, I think cyber security, cyber warfare will be one of the biggest challenges facing the next president, because clearly we’re facing at this point two different kinds of adversaries. There are the independent hacking groups that do it mostly for commercial reasons to try to steal information that they can use to make money.
But increasingly, we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There’s no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald’s very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really…
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: … tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee. And we recently have learned that, you know, that this is one of their preferred methods of trying to wreak havoc and collect information. We need to make it very clear — whether it’s Russia, China, Iran or anybody else — the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information.
And we’re going to have to make it clear that we don’t want to use the kinds of tools that we have. We don’t want to engage in a different kind of warfare. But we will defend the citizens of this country.
And the Russians need to understand that. I think they’ve been treating it as almost a probing, how far would we go, how much would we do. And that’s why I was so — I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable. It’s one of the reasons why 50 national security officials who served in Republican information — in administrations…
HOLT: Your two minutes have expired.
CLINTON: … have said that Donald is unfit to be the commander- in-chief. It’s comments like that that really worry people who understand the threats that we face.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes and the same question. Who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?
TRUMP: I do want to say that I was just endorsed — and more are coming next week — it will be over 200 admirals, many of them here — admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country. That just happened, and many more are coming. And I’m very proud of it.
In addition, I was just endorsed by ICE. They’ve never endorsed anybody before on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE. I was just recently endorsed — 16,500 Border Patrol agents.
So when Secretary Clinton talks about this, I mean, I’ll take the admirals and I’ll take the generals any day over the political hacks that I see that have led our country so brilliantly over the last 10 years with their knowledge. OK? Because look at the mess that we’re in. Look at the mess that we’re in.
As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?
TRUMP: You don’t know who broke in to DNC.
But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That’s what we learned.
Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don’t know, because the truth is, under President Obama we’ve lost control of things that we used to have control over.
We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I think there are a number of issues that we should be addressing. I have put forth a plan to defeat ISIS. It does involve going after them online. I think we need to do much more with our tech companies to prevent ISIS and their operatives from being able to use the Internet to radicalize, even direct people in our country and Europe and elsewhere.
But we also have to intensify our air strikes against ISIS and eventually support our Arab and Kurdish partners to be able to actually take out ISIS in Raqqa, end their claim of being a Caliphate.
We’re making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we’re hoping that within the year we’ll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.
But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they’ve had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons, so we have to make this the top priority.
And I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership. I was involved in a number of efforts to take out Al Qaida leadership when I was secretary of state, including, of course, taking out bin Laden. And I think we need to go after Baghdadi, as well, make that one of our organizing principles. Because we’ve got to defeat ISIS, and we’ve got to do everything we can to disrupt their propaganda efforts online.
HOLT: You mention ISIS, and we think of ISIS certainly as over there, but there are American citizens who have been inspired to commit acts of terror on American soil, the latest incident, of course, the bombings we just saw in New York and New Jersey, the knife attack at a mall in Minnesota, in the last year, deadly attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando. I’ll ask this to both of you. Tell us specifically how you would prevent homegrown attacks by American citizens, Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. Secretary Clinton is talking about taking out ISIS. “We will take out ISIS.” Well, President Obama and Secretary Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out — what, they shouldn’t have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed.
So she talks about taking them out. She’s been doing it a long time. She’s been trying to take them out for a long time. But they wouldn’t have even been formed if they left some troops behind, like 10,000 or maybe something more than that. And then you wouldn’t have had them.
Or, as I’ve been saying for a long time, and I think you’ll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil — and we should have taken the oil — ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil — a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I hope the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard. Donald supported the invasion of Iraq.
TRUMP: Wrong.
CLINTON: That is absolutely proved over and over again.
TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.
CLINTON: He actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time.
CLINTON: But the larger point — and he says this constantly — is George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.
And the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.
But let’s talk about the question you asked, Lester. The question you asked is, what do we do here in the United States? That’s the most important part of this. How do we prevent attacks? How do we protect our people?
And I think we’ve got to have an intelligence surge, where we are looking for every scrap of information. I was so proud of law enforcement in New York, in Minnesota, in New Jersey. You know, they responded so quickly, so professionally to the attacks that occurred by Rahami. And they brought him down. And we may find out more information because he is still alive, which may prove to be an intelligence benefit.
So we’ve got to do everything we can to vacuum up intelligence from Europe, from the Middle East. That means we’ve got to work more closely with our allies, and that’s something that Donald has been very dismissive of.
We’re working with NATO, the longest military alliance in the history of the world, to really turn our attention to terrorism. We’re working with our friends in the Middle East, many of which, as you know, are Muslim majority nations. Donald has consistently insulted Muslims abroad, Muslims at home, when we need to be cooperating with Muslim nations and with the American Muslim community.
They’re on the front lines. They can provide information to us that we might not get anywhere else. They need to have close working cooperation with law enforcement in these communities, not be alienated and pushed away as some of Donald’s rhetoric, unfortunately, has led to.
HOLT: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: Well, I have to respond.
HOLT: Please respond.
TRUMP: The secretary said very strongly about working with — we’ve been working with them for many years, and we have the greatest mess anyone’s ever seen. You look at the Middle East, it’s a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent.
But you look at the Middle East, you started the Iran deal, that’s another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they’re going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they’re going.
But when you look at NATO, I was asked on a major show, what do you think of NATO? And you have to understand, I’m a businessperson. I did really well. But I have common sense. And I said, well, I’ll tell you. I haven’t given lots of thought to NATO. But two things.
Number one, the 28 countries of NATO, many of them aren’t paying their fair share. Number two — and that bothers me, because we should be asking — we’re defending them, and they should at least be paying us what they’re supposed to be paying by treaty and contract.
And, number two, I said, and very strongly, NATO could be obsolete, because — and I was very strong on this, and it was actually covered very accurately in the New York Times, which is unusual for the New York Times, to be honest — but I said, they do not focus on terror. And I was very strong. And I said it numerous times.
And about four months ago, I read on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that NATO is opening up a major terror division. And I think that’s great. And I think we should get — because we pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO. It’s a lot of money to protect other people. But I’m all for NATO. But I said they have to focus on terror, also.
And they’re going to do that. And that was — believe me — I’m sure I’m not going to get credit for it — but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO.
I think we have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, in addition to surrounding nations, and we have to knock the hell out of ISIS, and we have to do it fast, when ISIS formed in this vacuum created by Barack Obama and Secretary Clinton. And believe me, you were the ones that took out the troops. Not only that, you named the day. They couldn’t believe it. They sat back probably and said, I can’t believe it. They said…
CLINTON: Lester, we’ve covered…
TRUMP: No, wait a minute.
CLINTON: We’ve covered this ground.
TRUMP: When they formed, when they formed, this is something that never should have happened. It should have never happened. Now, you’re talking about taking out ISIS. But you were there, and you were secretary of state when it was a little infant. Now it’s in over 30 countries. And you’re going to stop them? I don’t think so.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, a lot of these are judgment questions. You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion. What makes your…
TRUMP: I did not support the war in Iraq.
HOLT: In 2002…
TRUMP: That is a mainstream media nonsense put out by her, because she — frankly, I think the best person in her campaign is mainstream media.
HOLT: My question is, since you supported it…
TRUMP: Just — would you like to hear…
HOLT: … why is your — why is your judgment…
TRUMP: Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out.
HOLT: The record shows otherwise, but why — why was…
TRUMP: The record does not show that.
HOLT: Why was — is your judgment any…
TRUMP: The record shows that I’m right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows? Essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important. I then spoke to Sean Hannity, which everybody refuses to call Sean Hannity. I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean Hannity said — and he called me the other day — and I spoke to him about it — he said you were totally against the war, because he was for the war.
HOLT: Why is your judgment better than…
TRUMP: And when he — excuse me. And that was before the war started. Sean Hannity said very strongly to me and other people — he’s willing to say it, but nobody wants to call him. I was against the war. He said, you used to have fights with me, because Sean was in favor of the war.
And I understand that side, also, not very much, because we should have never been there. But nobody called Sean Hannity. And then they did an article in a major magazine, shortly after the war started. I think in ’04. But they did an article which had me totally against the war in Iraq.
And one of your compatriots said, you know, whether it was before or right after, Trump was definitely — because if you read this article, there’s no doubt. But if somebody — and I’ll ask the press — if somebody would call up Sean Hannity, this was before the war started. He and I used to have arguments about the war. I said, it’s a terrible and a stupid thing. It’s going to destabilize the Middle East. And that’s exactly what it’s done. It’s been a disaster.
HOLT: My reference was to what you had said in 2002, and my question was…
TRUMP: No, no. You didn’t hear what I said.
HOLT: Why is your judgment — why is your judgment any different than Mrs. Clinton’s judgment?
TRUMP: Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There’s no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?
(LAUGHTER)
I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you — she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising — you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names — oh, temperament, let’s go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a…
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
TRUMP: Wait. The AFL-CIO the other day, behind the blue screen, I don’t know who you were talking to, Secretary Clinton, but you were totally out of control. I said, there’s a person with a temperament that’s got a problem.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Whew, OK.
(LAUGHTER)
Let’s talk about two important issues that were briefly mentioned by Donald, first, NATO. You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it’s ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.
With respect to Iran, when I became secretary of state, Iran was weeks away from having enough nuclear material to form a bomb. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush administration. They had built covert facilities. They had stocked them with centrifuges that were whirling away.
And we had sanctioned them. I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn’t enough. So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran.
And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot. That’s diplomacy. That’s coalition-building. That’s working with other nations.
The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I’d blow them out of the water and start another war. That’s not good judgment.
TRUMP: That would not start a war.
CLINTON: That is not the right temperament to be commander-in- chief, to be taunted. And the worst part…
TRUMP: No, they were taunting us.
CLINTON: … of what we heard Donald say has been about nuclear weapons. He has said repeatedly that he didn’t care if other nations got nuclear weapons, Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He even said, well, you know, if there were nuclear war in East Asia, well, you know, that’s fine…
TRUMP: Wrong.
CLINTON: … have a good time, folks.
TRUMP: It’s lies.
CLINTON: And, in fact, his cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling. That is the number-one threat we face in the world. And it becomes particularly threatening if terrorists ever get their hands on any nuclear material. So a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes, as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned.
TRUMP: That line’s getting a little bit old, I must say. I would like to…
CLINTON: It’s a good one, though. It well describes the problem.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: It’s not an accurate one at all. It’s not an accurate one. So I just want to give a lot of things — and just to respond. I agree with her on one thing. The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament, nuclear weapons, not global warming, like you think and your — your president thinks.
Nuclear is the single greatest threat. Just to go down the list, we defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us, because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune. That’s why we’re losing — we’re losing — we lose on everything. I say, who makes these — we lose on everything. All I said, that it’s very possible that if they don’t pay a fair share, because this isn’t 40 years ago where we could do what we’re doing. We can’t defend Japan, a behemoth, selling us cars by the million…
HOLT: We need to move on.
TRUMP: Well, wait, but it’s very important. All I said was, they may have to defend themselves or they have to help us out. We’re a country that owes $20 trillion. They have to help us out.
HOLT: Our last…
TRUMP: As far as the nuclear is concerned, I agree. It is the single greatest threat that this country has.
HOLT: Which leads to my next question, as we enter our last segment here (inaudible) the subject of securing America. On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy? Mr. Trump, you have two minutes on that.
TRUMP: Well, I have to say that, you know, for what Secretary Clinton was saying about nuclear with Russia, she’s very cavalier in the way she talks about various countries. But Russia has been expanding their — they have a much newer capability than we do. We have not been updating from the new standpoint.
I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they’re old enough that your father, your grandfather could be flying them. We are not — we are not keeping up with other countries. I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike.
I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we’re doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.
And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I’ve ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.
And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places.
And when asked to Secretary Kerry, why didn’t you do that? Why didn’t you add other things into the deal? One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including $400 million in cash. Nobody’s ever seen that before. That turned out to be wrong. It was actually $1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I guess for the hostages. It certainly looks that way.
So you say to yourself, why didn’t they make the right deal? This is one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history. The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems. All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don’t have to do much.
HOLT: Your two minutes is expired.
TRUMP: And they’re going to end up getting nuclear. I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day. Believe me, he’s not a happy camper.
HOLT: All right. Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, let me — let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.
It is essential that America’s word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I’ve talked with a number of them. But I want to — on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good.
It’s also important that we look at the entire global situation. There’s no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. But personally, I’d rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program than still to be facing that.
And Donald never tells you what he would do. Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran? If he’s going to criticize a deal that has been very successful in giving us access to Iranian facilities that we never had before, then he should tell us what his alternative would be. But it’s like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it’s a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan.
So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That’s what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they’re abroad or at home.
We cannot let those who would try to destabilize the world to interfere with American interests and security…
HOLT: Your two minutes is…
CLINTON: … to be given any opportunities at all.
HOLT: … is expired.
TRUMP: Lester, one thing I’d like to say.
HOLT: Very quickly. Twenty seconds.
TRUMP: I will go very quickly. But I will tell you that Hillary will tell you to go to her website and read all about how to defeat ISIS, which she could have defeated by never having it, you know, get going in the first place. Right now, it’s getting tougher and tougher to defeat them, because they’re in more and more places, more and more states, more and more nations.
HOLT: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: And it’s a big problem. And as far as Japan is concerned, I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world…
HOLT: We have just…
TRUMP: … where they’re not paying us what we need.
HOLT: We have just a few final questions…
TRUMP: And she doesn’t say that, because she’s got no business ability. We need heart. We need a lot of things. But you have to have some basic ability. And sadly, she doesn’t have that. All of the things that she’s talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let’s say, while she had great power. But they weren’t taken care of. And if she ever wins this race, they won’t be taken care of.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn’t have, quote, “a presidential look.” She’s standing here right now. What did you mean by that?
TRUMP: She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t have the stamina. I said she doesn’t have the stamina. And I don’t believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.
HOLT: The quote was, “I just don’t think she has the presidential look.”
TRUMP: You have — wait a minute. Wait a minute, Lester. You asked me a question. Did you ask me a question?
You have to be able to negotiate our trade deals. You have to be able to negotiate, that’s right, with Japan, with Saudi Arabia. I mean, can you imagine, we’re defending Saudi Arabia? And with all of the money they have, we’re defending them, and they’re not paying? All you have to do is speak to them. Wait. You have so many different things you have to be able to do, and I don’t believe that Hillary has the stamina.
HOLT: Let’s let her respond. CLINTON: Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: The world — let me tell you. Let me tell you. Hillary has experience, but it’s bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last — so she’s got experience, that I agree.
(APPLAUSE)
But it’s bad, bad experience. Whether it’s the Iran deal that you’re so in love with, where we gave them $150 billion back, whether it’s the Iran deal, whether it’s anything you can — name — you almost can’t name a good deal. I agree. She’s got experience, but it’s bad experience. And this country can’t afford to have another four years of that kind of experience.
HOLT: We are at — we are at the final question.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, one thing. One thing, Lester.
HOLT: Very quickly, because we’re at the final question now.
CLINTON: You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said…
TRUMP: I never said that.
CLINTON: …. women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.
TRUMP: Where did you find this? Where did you find this?
CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.
TRUMP: Where did you find this?
CLINTON: And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet…
TRUMP: Oh, really? CLINTON: … she’s going to vote this November.
TRUMP: OK, good. Let me just tell you…
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Mr. Trump, could we just take 10 seconds and then we ask the final question…
TRUMP: You know, Hillary is hitting me with tremendous commercials. Some of it’s said in entertainment. Some of it’s said — somebody who’s been very vicious to me, Rosie O’Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.
But you want to know the truth? I was going to say something…
HOLT: Please very quickly.
TRUMP: … extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself, “I can’t do it. I just can’t do it. It’s inappropriate. It’s not nice.” But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue. They’re untrue. And they’re misrepresentations.
And I will tell you this, Lester: It’s not nice. And I don’t deserve that.
But it’s certainly not a nice thing that she’s done. It’s hundreds of millions of ads. And the only gratifying thing is, I saw the polls come in today, and with all of that money…
HOLT: We have to move on to the final question.
TRUMP: … $200 million is spent, and I’m either winning or tied, and I’ve spent practically nothing.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: One of you will not win this election. So my final question to you tonight, are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters? Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election.
And I know Donald’s trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This election’s really up to you. It’s not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it, because I think it does.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question. Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters? TRUMP: I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. We’re losing our jobs. People are pouring into our country.
The other day, we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they passed the wrong button, they pressed the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption, but these people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens. And it was 800. And now it turns out it might be 1,800, and they don’t even know.
HOLT: Will you accept the outcome of the election?
5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
TRUMP: Look, here’s the story. I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her.
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: All right. Well, that is going to do it for us. That concludes our debate for this evening, a spirit one. We covered a lot of ground, not everything as I suspected we would.
The next presidential debates are scheduled for October 9th at Washington University in St. Louis and October 19th at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The conversation will continue.
A reminder. The vice presidential debate is scheduled for October 4th at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. My thanks to Hillary Clinton and to Donald Trump and to Hofstra University for hosting us tonight. Good night, everyone.
De vez en cuando, Occidente saca del armario algunos esqueletos, en lo que constituye un ejercicio de «limpieza moral de verano» con objetivos político-mediáticos.
En Gran Bretaña, una comisión de la Cámara de los Comunes criticó a David Cameron por la intervención militar de 2011 en Libia, emprendida bajo su mandato como primer ministro. Pero la comisión no criticó a Cameron por la agresión militar que destruyó un Estado soberano sino por haber emprendido esa guerra sin «inteligencia» adecuada y sin plan para la «reconstrucción» [1].
Lo mismo hizo Barack Obama en abril de este año 2016, cuando declaró haber cometido en el caso de Libia el «peor error», pero no por haber destruido ese país utilizando las fuerzas de la OTAN bajo las órdenes de Estados Unidos sino por no haber planificado «The Day after», o sea lo que vendría después. Al mismo tiempo, Obama reiteró su apoyo a Hillary Clinton, hoy candidata a la presidencia. O sea, la misma Hillary Clinton que, como secretaria de Estado, lo convenció para que autorizara una operación secreta contra Libia –incluyendo el envío de fuerzas especiales y la entrega de armamento a grupos terroristas– para preparar el asalto aeronaval de Estados Unidos y la OTAN contra ese país.
Los correos electrónicos de Hillary Clinton, posteriormente revelados, demuestran cuál fue el verdadero objetivo de la guerra contra Libia: impedir el proyecto de creación de organismos financieros autónomos de la Unión Africana y de una moneda africana alternativa al dólar y al franco CFA, que Kadhafi pensaba concretar gracias a los multimillonarios fondos soberanos de Libia.
Después de haber destruido el Estado libio, Estados Unidos y la OTAN, junto a las monarquías del Golfo, emprendieron la operación secreta que debía acabar con el Estado sirio, infiltrando en Siria fuerzas especiales y grupos terroristas que acabaron pariendo el Emirato Islámico (Daesh, también designado como Estado Islámico o con siglas como EI, EIIL, ISIL o ISIS).
Uno de los numerosos correos electrónicos de Hillary Clinton que el Departamento de Estado tuvo que desclasificar a raíz del escándalo provocado por las revelaciones de Wikileaks menciona uno de los objetivos fundamentales de la operación, aún en marcha, contra Siria. En el correo electrónico desclasificado como «case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498» [2], la secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton escribe, el 31 de diciembre de 2012:
«Es la relación estratégica entre Irán y el régimen de Bachar al-Assad lo que permite a Irán socavar la seguridad de Israel, no a través de un ataque directo sino a través de sus aliados en Líbano, como el Hezbollah.»
La señora Clinton subraya entonces que «la mejor manera de ayudar a Israel es ayudar a la rebelión en Siria que ya dura desde hace más de un año», o sea desde 2011, y sostiene que para poner de rodillas a Bachar al-Assad hay que recurrir «al uso de la fuerza» para «poner en peligro su vida y la de su familia».
En ese correo electrónico, Hillary Clinton concluye:
«El derrocamiento de Assad sería no sólo una inmensa ganancia para la seguridad de Israel, sino que también haría disminuir el temor israelí comprensible de perder el monopolio nuclear.»
O sea, en ese correo electrónico la secretaria de Estado reconoce lo que nadie dice oficialmente: el hecho que Israel es el único país del Medio Oriente que posee armas nuclearees [Desde aquella época, Arabia Saudita compró la bomba atómica [3].]
El apoyo de la administración Obama a Israel, más allá de alguna que otra disensión más bien formales, acaba de ser ampliamente confirmado por el acuerdo, firmado en Washington el 14 de septiembre de 2016, donde Estados Unidos se compromete a equipar a Israel con el armamento más moderno de sus arsenales por un valor total de 38 000 millones de dólares en 10 años, con un financiamiento anual de 3 300 millones más medio millón para la «defensa antimisiles».
En todo caso, luego de la intervención rusa que dio al traste con el plan tendiente a destruir Siria desde adentro imponiéndole una guerra, Estados Unidos se las arregló para obtener una «tregua» (que inmediatamente viola) mientras emprende en Libia una nueva ofensiva disfrazada de operación humanitaria, con la participación de los “mili-humanitarios” de Italia.
Mientras tanto, Israel, en la sombra, sigue fortaleciendo su ventaja nuclear, que tanto estima Hillary Clinton.
[2] «New Iran and Syria», Hillary Clinton, 31 de diciembre de 2012, (Wikileaks).
[3] «Alerta roja nuclear», por Manlio Dinucci, Il Manifesto (Italia), Red Voltaire, 25 de febrero de 2016. «Arabia Saudita tiene la bomba atómica», por Giulietto Chiesa, Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italia), Red Voltaire, 2 de marzo de 2016.
As “Psyops” (Operações psicológicas), de que são especiais adeptas unidades das forças armadas e dos serviços secretos dos EUA, são definidas pelo Pentágono como “operações planificadas para influenciar através de determinadas informações as emoções e motivações e portanto o comportamento da opinião pública, de governos estrangeiros, de modo a induzir ou fortalecer posicionamentos favoráveis aos objetivos prefixados”.
É exatamente esse o escopo da colossal psyop político-midiática lançada sobre a Síria. Depois de cinco anos tentando demolir o Estado sírio, desmantelando-o por dentro com grupos terroristas armados e infiltrados do exterior e provocando mais de 250 mil mortes, agora que a operação militar está falindo, lança-se a operação psicológica para fazer com que apareçam como agressores o governo e todos os sírios que resistem à agressão.
Uma ponta de lança da psyop é a demonização do presidente Assad (como se fez com Milosevic e Kadafi), apresentado como um sádico ditador que gosta de bombardear hospitais e exterminar crianças, com a ajuda do amigo Putin (pintado como um neoczar do império russo renascido das cinzas).
Com tal finalidade, será apresentada em Roma no início de outubro, por iniciativa de várias organizações “humanitárias”, uma mostra fotográfica financiada pela monarquia absolutista do Catar e já exposta na ONU e no Museu do Holocausto de Washington por iniciativa dos EUA, da Arábia Saudita e Turquia. A exposição contém parte das 55 mil fotos que um misterioso desertor sírio, de codinome Caesar, disse terem sido tiradas por encargo do governo de Damasco com o objetivo de documentar as torturas e assassinatos dos prisioneiros, ou seja, os próprios crimes (sobre a credibilidade das fotos, ver o informe de Sibialiria e Antidiplomatico).
É necessário fazer uma outra mostra, para expor toda a documentação que demole as “informações” da psyop sobre a Síria. Por exemplo, o documento oficial da Agência de inteligência do Pentágono, datado de 12 de agosto de 2012 (desarquivado em 18 de maio de 2015 por iniciativa de “Judicial Watch“): este relata que “os países ocidentais, os Estados do Golfo e a Turquia apoiam na Síria as forças de oposição para estabelecer um principado salafista na Síria oriental, algo desejado pelas potências que sustentam a oposição com o objetivo de isolar o regime sírio”.
Isto explica o encontro em maio de 2013 (documentado fotograficamente) entre o senador estadunidense John McCain, na Síria, por conta da Casa Branca, e Ibrahim al-Badri, o “califa” à frente do chamado Estado Islâmico. Explica também por que o presidente Obama autorizou secretamente em 2013 a operação “Timber Sycamore“, conduzida pela CIA e financiada por Riad com milhões de dólares, para armar e treinar os “rebeldes” para infiltrá-los na Síria (New York Timesde 24 de janeiro de 2016).
Outra documentação se encontra no email de Hillary Clinton (desarquivado como “case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498″), no qual, exercendo o cargo de secretária de Estado, escreve em dezembro de 2012 que, devido à “relação estratégica” Irã-Síria, “a derrubada de Assad constituiria um imenso benefício para Israel, e faria também diminuir o compreensível temor israelense de perder o monopólio nuclear”.
Para demolir a “informação” da psyop, é necessário também fazer uma retrospectiva histórica de como os EUA instrumentalizaram os curdos desde a primeira guerra do Golfo em 1991. Naquele momento para “balcanizar” o Iraque, hoje para desagregar a Síria. As bases aéreas instaladas hoje pelos EUA na área curda na Síria servem à estratégia “divide e impera”, que visa não à libertação mas a submeter os povos, inclusive o curdo.
The Pentagon chief put Russia on par with North Korea when he spoke about threats faced by the US and its allies, and the need to invest billions into refreshing NATO’s nuclear playbook to integrate conventional and unconventional deterrence methods.
Addressing US servicemen, missile units and B-52 crews at Minot Base, Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that the US and its allies had not built any new nuclear weapons or delivery systems in the last 25 years – and said that American nuclear forces must be ready to engage in a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia.
“Russia has long been a nuclear power, but Moscow’s recent saber-rattling and building of new nuclear weapons systems raises serious questions about its leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their regard for long-established accords of using nuclear weapons and whether they respect the profound caution that Cold War era leaders showed in respect to brandishing their nuclear weapons,” the Pentagon chief claimed.
Brushing aside the fact that so far the US remains the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another state, Carter said that a “diverse and dynamic spectrum” of nuclear threats in the world could prompt some nations to use these weapons on a smaller scale.
“It is a sobering fact that the most likely use of nuclear weapons today is not the massive ‘nuclear exchange’ of the classic Cold War-type, but rather the unwise resorting to smaller but still unprecedentedly terrible attacks, for example by Russia or North Korea,” he said. “We cannot allow that to happen, which is why we’re working with our allies in both regions to innovate and operate in new ways that sustain deterrence and continue to preserve strategic stability.”
To counter the perceived Russian threat, Carter stressed that the US and its NATO allies in Europe are “refreshing” its nuclear playbook to integrate conventional and nuclear deterrence “to ensure we plan and train like we’d fight” and to “deter Russia from thinking it can benefit from nuclear use in a conflict with NATO.”
In addition to tensions with Russia, Carter referred to the North Korean threat a few times during his speech, implying that Washington must be ready to support its allies in Asia in face of continued Pyongyang’s disobedience to UN Security Council resolutions and ongoing nuclear and delivery methods tests.
“The confidence that you’re ready to respond is what stops potential adversaries from using nuclear weapons against the United States or our allies in the first place,” he said, adding that the Pentagon plans to invest $108 billion over the next five years to sustain and improve its nuclear force.
The investment is aimed at modernizing the nuclear triad of the US strategic posture which includes land-based ICBMs, nuclear bombers, and submarine-launched atomic missiles. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US could spend up to $348 billion through 2024 modernizing every component of the US nuclear triad.
At present US nuclear weapons can be delivered for a strike on potential targets using 20-year-old B-2 stealth bombers or 50-year-old B-52 strategic bombers. From sea missiles could be deployed from a 35-year-old Ohio-class nuclear submarines. Meanwhile, silo-launched Minuteman III ballistic missiles are in service since 1970s.
“If we don’t replace these systems, quite simply they will age even more, and become unsafe, unreliable, and ineffective. The fact is, most of our nuclear weapon delivery systems have already been extended decades beyond their original expected service lives,” Carter said.
“Deterrence still depends on perception,” Carter added. “What potential adversaries see, and therefore believe, about our ability to act.”
Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare during the US strikes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the UN estimates that some 22,000 of world’s deadliest warheads remain on the planet today.
To limit the use of atomic weapons, a number of multilateral treaties have been set up to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament. These include but are not limited to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests In The Atmosphere, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
As bilateral US-Russian tensions remain at an old-time high since the end of the Cold War, on Friday Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN, called on the next president of the United States that will assume office next year to ratify the CTBT, already ratified by Moscow.
In terms of the bilateral US-Russian nuclear relations, its conduct is enshrined in the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). Signed in April 2010 in Prague, the agreement entered into force in February 2011 and is expected to last at least until 2021.
Under terms of the agreement, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers in both countries will be reduced by half. The treaty limits the number of simultaneously deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550. The treaty, however, does not limit the number of operationally inactive stockpiled nuclear warheads that remain in both the Russia and the US.
“Results from our monitoring of air quality and drinking water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances… Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C., that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.” -statement from then EPA Administrator Christine Whitman (September 19, 2001) [1]
“In that cloud of dust people were breathing all sorts of stuff. I spat stuff like oatmeal, full of silica and glass fibers…I think this is criminal…When you keep this information from the public and the workers, you lie to them. The government should be ashamed of themselves for not telling us what we were exposed to.” Israel “Izzy” Miranda, New York firefighter and EMS union leader, who arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the first tower collapsed. (source: Sierra Club) [2]
On the weekend of September 11, 2016 Christine Todd Whitman, head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the 9/11 attacks and the weeks that followed, admitted in an interview with the Guardian that the information she relayed about the air around Ground Zero being safe to breathe was mistaken and offered an apology to all the victims who were sick and dying as a result of that advice.
“I’m very sorry that people are sick…I’m very sorry that people are dying and if the EPA and I in any way contributed to that, I’m sorry. We did the very best we could at the time with the knowledge we had.”
She added:
“Every time it comes around to the anniversary I cringe, because I know people will bring up my name, they blame me, they say that I lied and that people died because I lied, [they say] people have died because I made a mistake.”[3]
So the former EPA head admitted she was wrong but denied she deliberately lied to the public.
There is however overwhelming evidence that this government agency had reason to suspect the air in the vicinity of the World Trade Center following the attacks was not only toxic, and deliberately misled the public about the quality of the air.
As a result, numerous first responders, and ordinary citizens in the New York area inhaled dust and debris containing dangerous quantities of not only asbestos, but lead, mercury, cadmium, toxic organic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), glass fibers, pulverized concrete, and caustic particles so alkaline they had pH levels near that of liquid drain cleaner. [4]
Over 1,000 people have died from illnesses tied to exposure to debris. That number is expected within five years to exceed the number who were killed on the day of the attacks. [5]
Other aspects of 9/11, including the ‘false flag’ counter-narratives, appear to have gained more prominence in mainstream and alternative media, than the crime of thousands losing their lives as a result of agency disinformation.
This week’s Global Research News Hour, the latest in a series devoted to the 15th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks examines the U.S. government’s environmental watchdog’s crimes with special guest Jenna Orkin.
Jenna Orkin is a Resident of New York City and was one of the first to question the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s assertions that the air in Lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks was safe to breathe. She went on to co-found the World Trade Center Environmental Organization as well as other Lower Manhattan activist organizations that revealed and testified to the government’s lies. She presented her research at the Citizen’s 9/11 Omission Hearings in New York in September of 2004. (see video below.)
Over the course of the hour, Orkin recounts her experiences on the day of the attacks, describes some of the toxic content in the World Trade Centre debris, and explains how and why the U.S. EPA deliberately misled New Yorkers, particularly first responders, as to the hazardous conditions they were exposed to in the days following the collapses of the towers. Later on, she comments on her close association and friendship with Michael Ruppert. As she does in her 2014 book, Orkin makes an effort to humanize a man seen by many today as a hero and a giant within the 9/11 Truth movement.
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 every Monday at 3pm 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.
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 every Saturday at 6am.
Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John 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
3) Joanna Walters (September 10, 2016) “Former EPA head admits she was wrong to tell New Yorkers post-9/11 air was safe”, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/10/epa-head-wrong-911-air-safe-new-york-christine-todd-whitman
4) Air Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration’s Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation. Sierra Club, August 2004, pg 14-16;
5) Joanna Walters (September 11, 2016), “9/11 health crisis: death toll from illness nears number killed on day of attacks”, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/11/9-11-illnesses-death-toll
Le «Psyops» (Operazioni psicologiche), cui sono addette speciali unità delle forze armate e dei servizi segreti Usa, sono definite dal Pentagono «operazioni pianificate per influenzare attraverso determinate informazioni le emozioni e motivazioni e quindi il comportamento dell’opinione pubblica, di organizzazioni e governi stranieri, così da indurre o rafforzare atteggiamenti favorevoli agli obiettivi prefissi».
Esattamente lo scopo della colossale psyop politico-mediatica lanciata sulla Siria. Dopo che per cinque anni si è cercato di demolire lo Stato siriano, scardinandolo all’interno con gruppi terroristi armati e infiltrati dall’esterno e provocando oltre 250mila morti, ora che l’operazione militare sta fallendo si lancia quella psicologica per far apparire come aggressori il governo e tutti quei siriani che resistono all’aggressione.
Punta di lancia della psyop è la demonizzazione del presidente Assad (come già fatto con Milosevic e Gheddafi), presentato come un sadico dittatore che gode a bombardare ospedali e sterminare bambini, con l’aiuto dell’amico Putin (dipinto come neo-zar del rinato impero russo).
A tal fine sarà presentata a Roma agli inizi di ottobre, per iniziativa di varie organizzazioni «umanitarie», una mostra fotografica finanziata dalla monarchia assoluta del Qatar e già esposta all’Onu e al Museo dell’olocausto a Washington per iniziativa di Usa, Arabia Saudita e Turchia: essa contiene parte delle 55mila foto che un misterioso disertore siriano, nome in codice Caesar, dice di aver scattato per incarico del governo di Damasco allo scopo di documentare le torture e le uccisioni dei prigioneri, ossia i propri crimini (sull’attendibilità delle foto vedi il report di Sibialiria e l’Antidiplomatico).
Occorre a questo punto un’altra mostra, per esporre tutte le documentazioni che demoliscono le «informazioni» della psyop sulla Siria.
Ad esempio, il documento ufficiale dell’Agenzia di intelligence del Pentagono, datato 12 agosto 2012 (desecretato il 18 maggio 2015 per iniziativa di «Judicial Watch»): esso riporta che «i paesi occidentali, gli stati del Golfo e la Turchia sostengono in Siria le forze di opposizione per stabilire un principato salafita nella Siria orientale, cosa voluta dalle potenze che sostengono l’opposizione allo scopo di isolare il regime siriano».
Ciò spiega l’incontro nel maggio 2013 (documentato fotograficamente) tra il senatore Usa John McCain, in Siria per conto della Casa Bianca, e Ibrahim al-Badri, il «califfo» a capo dell’Isis. Spiega anche perché il presidente Obama autorizza segretamente nel 2013 l’operazione «Timber Sycamore», condotta dalla Cia e finanziata da Riyad con milioni di dollari, per armare e addestrare i «ribelli» da infiltrare in Siria (v. il New York Times del 23 gennaio 2016).
Altra documentazione si trova nella mail di Hillary Clinton (declassificata come «case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498»), nella quale, in veste di segretaria di stato, scrive nel dicembre 2012 che, data la «relazione strategica» Iran-Siria, «il rovesciamento di Assad costituirebbe un immenso beneficio per di Israele, e farebbe anche diminuire il comprensibile timore israeliano di perdere il monopolio nucleare».
Per demolire le «informazioni» della psyop, ci vuole anche una retrospettiva storica di come gli Usa hanno strumentalizzato i curdi fin dalla prima guerra del Golfo nel 1991. Allora per«balcanizzare» l’Iraq, oggi per disgregare la Siria. Le basi aeree installate oggi dagli Usa nell’area curda in Siria servono alla strategia del «divide et impera», che mira non alla liberazione ma all’asservimento dei popoli, compreso quello curdo.
The current “level of violence in verbal attacks” on Russia at the UN is unprecedented,” Gilbert Doctorow, European Coordinator for the American Committee for East West Accord told Radio Sputnik, adding that this seems to indicate that something grave must have happened between the two countries with regard to Syria behind the scenes.
The United States and Russia have lashed at each other over the Syrian conflict, with Washington and Moscow trading blows at the urgent UN Security Council meeting on Sunday.
US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, who has never been known “for her diplomatic talent,” as Doctorow put it, accused Russia of “barbarism” in Syria. She added that Moscow and Damascus ostensibly “make war” instead of “pursuing peace.” She also blamed both governments for “bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive.”
“We reached a new low,” the analyst said.
Doctorow described the US’ behavior at the UN as “rude.” He also noted that such rhetoric has been absent from the UN Security Council meetings for decades. We have not seen “this level of open hostility and direct name calling” since 1985.
“The violence of this, the extreme hostility implicit in these actions suggests that something more is going on between the two sides than we find on the front pages of the newspapers,” the analyst observed. Latest developments seem to point that “something very serious has transpired between Russia, the United States and its closes allies over Syria – far more serious than what has been in the public domain.”
Doctorow further said that the US-coalition airstrike on the Syrian Arab Army in Deir ez-Zor and the SAA resuming air raids in Aleppo are not sufficient to explain this level of verbal hostility.
On Monday, Damascus said that the Syrian intelligence services have an audio recoding of communications between US forces and Daesh prior to Deir ez-Zor attack that claimed the lives of at least 62 Syrian servicemen on September 17.
“It could be true, but it will have no implications because truth is the least of the factors on the playing field today,” the analyst noted.
Doctorow recalled that the Western media did not cover the Russian Defense Ministry’s press briefing over Daesh’s illegal oil trade with Turkey.
Ammunition and ‘Guns of Hell’: Rare Glimpse of Handarat Camp in Aleppo “That was dramatic. It was a fantastic demonstration. What was the result? Zero. There was no coverage in the Western press although all of NATO military attaches in Moscow were scribbling furiously and taking as many photos of the Russian flights as they could,” he said.
In Doctorow’s opinion, the Syrians and the Russians “can prove anything they like,” but mainstream media in the West will “totally” ignore it. “That is a sad fact today. This is why force and not diplomacy seems to be resolving the question or seems to be addressing the question of what future Syria has. Diplomacy has only been decorative.”
Last week TASS reported Russia’s western-most ICBM division will be rearmed with the RS-24 Yars missile system. Yars is a MIRV-equipped, thermonuclear, intercontinental ballistic missile that can reportedly carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads. The ICBM RS-24 Yars constitutes the backbone of Russia’s strategic missile force.
“The westernmost strategic missile force division in the Tver region will soon begin to be rearmed with the missile system Yars. It will be a sixth strategic missile division where the newest mobile ground-based missile complexes will replace the intercontinental ballistic missile Topol,” Sergey Karakayev, the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Force told the news agency.
The Russians claim the deployment is in response to NATO installing a US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe in violation of previous Russian-US arms treaties. The United States has made the outrageous claim its missile system is designed to respond to threats from Iran.
“Now, after the deployment of those anti-missile system elements, we’ll be forced to think about neutralizing developing threats to Russia’s security,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in May.
Putin added that the US anti-missile systems currently in place in Romania and soon in Poland can be easily repurposed to fire short and mid-range missiles.
Russia announced it would modernize a launch detection system in response to the threat along its border. It has also discussed stationing its state-of-the art Iskander missiles at its westernmost Baltic outpost of Kaliningrad which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. The Iskander travels at hypersonic speed and is capable of evading anti-ballistic missiles.
In addition to missiles and nuclear warheads, NATO and Russia have engaged in massive war games this year. NATO’s Anakonda 2016 exercise involved more than 30,000 troops, about half of them Americans, and thousands of combat vehicles from 24 nations. The huge exercise simulated battle maneuvers across Poland. A simultaneous naval exercise, BALTOPS 16, simulated “high-end maritime warfighting” in the Baltic Sea. Exercises were conducted in the waters near Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. The maritime exercise represented a clear provocation.
“All of this—the aggressive exercises, the NATO buildup, the added US troop deployments—reflects a new and dangerous strategic outlook in Washington. Whereas previously the strategic focus had been on terrorism and counterinsurgency, it has now shifted to conventional warfare among the major powers,” Michael T. Klare wrote for The Nation in July.
“Washington might intend the military buildup as pressure on President Putin to reduce Russian opposition to Washington’s unilateralism. However, it reminds some outspoken Russians such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky of Hitler’s troops on Russia’s border in 1941,” notes Paul Craig Roberts.
“To make the crisis clear for my readers and for all peoples, Washington is surrounding Russia with nuclear missile sites that can be silently converted from ABMs to first strike nuclear missiles that can reach Russian targets in a mere few minutes. Washington attempted to disguise this first strike capability with the explanation that the missiles were there to protect against an Iranian ICBM attack on Europe. This explanation was given by the US government despite the fact that everyone knows that Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons,” he writes on his website.
Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, is not optimistic about what such frenzied military activity portends.
He believes it is futile for Americans to plan for retirement.
“The crazed American government drowning in its own hubris has set us on a course to nuclear war. Can America produce a leader who can reverse course?”
Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly continue along this suicidal path. Donald Trump has said repeatedly he will not confront Russia. However, he has announced if elected the United States will expand its already massively inflated military budget.
He has proven to be one of the most stubborn of creatures in a political sense. Unlike the dinosaur of political thinking he has been accused of being, British Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn continues to survive the meteorites, and more nuanced weapons, directed at him.
The initial strategy from Labour MPs was to oust their leader in July on procedural grounds. The mutineers (call them the Tories in Labour clothing, the Blairites) failed to get their wishes of disqualifying Corbyn from office by a narrow 18-14 ruling by the National Executive Committee that Corbyn be allowed on the ballot even without the endorsement of 20 percent of his MPs.[1]
Instead of limping away in defeat from contender Owen Smith, Corbyn strengthened his position to be, interestingly enough, Labour’s strongest leader on paper to have ever been elected.
Even prior to Corbyn’s triumph, Smith was nervous at not having the numbers for unseating the Labour leader, suggesting, in an open letter to Labour Party members and supporters that his ideas would remain “as relevant after this contest as they have been during.” When loss is assured, best focus on the non-corporeal aspect of a losing performance.
Corbyn’s numbers proved thumping in their dimensions. There were 500,000 who flocked to the polls, and of those, 61.8 percent went Corbyn’s way, up from the 59.5 percent he garnered in September 2015. Had 130,000 party members not been deemed ineligible, the victory would have been an even greater massacre of his rival.
Detractors feel a gloomy similarity with previous Labour leaders liked for their resolve and manner but feared for their suicidal streak before ruthless conservative governments worshiping before the market altar. “Our policies,” claimed Vernon Coaker in a typical view of that situation, “have to change. If we don’t change we will die.”
For all that, Corbyn and his movement are more alive than ever, having little desire to expire. He is very much a manifestation of tide and force, a reminder that the Zeitgeist at the moment favours suspicion of central powers divorced from human sentiment. The bureaucrats and party hacks are not in vogue.
Central to that is a good smattering of good old decent socialism that had been much maligned by Tony Blair’s own surgical, and bewitching efforts. Knowing this to be the case, Smith was always struggling to remind voters within the party that Corbyn did not have a monopoly on the socialist creed.
The machine men and women are the robots to be feared and, more directly, ignored. Deputy leader Tom Watson has been accused of being a “Witchfinder” while past leaders such as Neil (“Lord Kneel”) Kinnock have been reminded of their supposedly perfidious past to workers.
Manufactured in the New Labour hot house of stated reform, the Blairites have begun to rust before the vengeful Corbynistas in the Momentum movement. Their presence is such as to land suggestions of a “personality cult” in the making.
The irony now is that Corbyn, in an effort to avoid another disruption, will attempt to appoint his own shadow cabinet with minimum influence of the MPs within his own party. This will also give him a shot at having better control over the National Executive Committee, which has not always been friendly to his efforts.
Swimming on the tide of popularity, any resistance was bound to look foolish, though it refuses to abate. Individuals like Wes Streeting MP told those at a gathering that, “We the people in this room, and across our party cannot surrender to a political tradition that will keep this party in opposition for generations to come.”[2]
Individuals such as Iain McNicol, the Labour General Secretary, show the gap between the Corbyn movement and party managerialism that emphasises “clause one socialism”. Parliamentary presence was one thing, the grass roots, with a revived socialist sentiment, quite another.
Former Shadow Health Secretary, Heidi Alexander, who has been niggling and sceptical of Corbyn, only had electioneering, and conservative styled appeal electioneering at that, on the brain. “What people like me are determined to do is continue fighting for a Labour Party that speaks to and for the whole of the country, and one which is capable of winning the next general election.”
The newly re-crowned leader has also threatened a certain number of de-selections for Labour MPs, and promised to shift the focus on policy making to the lower echelons of the party. Such a method, in one sense, is an attempt to draw out and marginalize his detractors.
The revenge of history on the New Labour movement is nigh. Each time an effort it made to target Corbyn’s leadership, the party receives a boost in membership. (There were 15,500 additions the immediate aftermath of his victory.)
Corbyn, even if he is not successful at the next election, has already made his mark on his party by localising interest at the branch level rather than that of the focus group, becoming something of an avenging angel. This is the social democratic agenda in action, though whether the British voter will give him a chance is another story.
The managers will be terrified, as much for their jobs as indeed for the party. If nothing else, Corbyn will have created something distinct from the Labour-Tory formula that characterised the Blair years.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
During what was apparently a joint presentation by the Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Antey and the Russian military in Moscow, raw radar data was apparently released which allegedly disproves Ukrainian claims that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile launched from militia controlled territory, and specifically from the town of Snizhnoe from where the Ukrainians claim the BUK missile was launched.
The data thereby supposedly confirms that only the Ukrainians could have shot down MH-17.
Apparently the data does not identify the missile launch point or make it possible to identify the type of missile that shot MH17 down.
However Almaz Antey has previously identified the missile as an early generation BUK missile of the sort it says is no longer used by the Russian military, and it claims to have identified the launch point by scientific tests as the village of Zaroshchenskoe.
Satellite data previously published by the Russian military shows a BUK missile launcher belonging to the Ukrainian military near Zaroshchenskoe shortly before MH17 was shot down. The authenticity of this data has been repeatedly challenged, but it has up to now consistently stood up to independent examination.
There is an exhaustive investigation undertaken by someone who identifies himself merely as “Andrew”, but who appears to be based in the US, on the basis of Ukrainian television reports, satellite data and contemporaneous social media messages.
Andrew has confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of the tragedy Zaroshchenskoe was under Ukrainian military control, and that there is a high probability that a Ukrainian BUK missile launcher was indeed located there.
Figure 1 – Russian Ministry of Defense map of Ukrainian BUK-M1 deployments in central Donbass on July 17, 2014.
Figure 2 – Russian Ministry of Defense satellite image of Ukrainian BUK-M1 vehicles deployed south of Zaroshchens’ke Village, Donetsk Oblast.
I should say that Almaz Antey and “Andrew” are far from being the first people to claim publicly that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile launched from or near Zaroshchenskoe.
On 6th August 2014 – ie. just weeks after the tragedy – the Saker published a report sent to him by someone called “CDN” – who he says has professional expertise in accident investigation.
He identified the BUK missile launch point as “near Shakhtorsk” – the town nearest to Zaroshchenskoe – which clearly identifies the Ukrainian BUK missile launcher that Almaz Antey and Andrew both say was at Zaroshchenskoe as the one that was responsible for the tragedy
The latest information from Moscow seems to be in line with the information previously provided by Almaz Antey, “Andrew” and “CDN”, though it will require careful study by those possessing the necessary technical knowledge before one can say definitely whether or not that is so.
However the problem with this new data is that it has been produced very late, on the basis of raw radar data which supposedly has only now come to light, and is being made public just two days before a Dutch led team is due to publish its own report. That inevitably means that some will dismiss this new data, claiming that it has been faked.
I presume there are ways of proving whether or not that is so, but even if there are, and even if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the new data is genuine, I doubt that will be enough to convince some people.
Shares in Deutsche Bank plunged yesterday in the wake of reports in a German news magazine that Chancellor Angela Merkel had ruled out assistance to the bank following the imposition by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) of a $14 billion fine over its dealings in the sub-prime mortgage market leading up to the financial crisis of 2008.
On Friday Focus, a weekly magazine based in Munich, reported that Merkel had categorically stated the government would not step in, citing unidentified government officials and that the chancellor had made her views known in discussions with the bank’s CEO, John Cryan.
Deutsche Bank shares plunged 7 percent, falling to their lowest level since 1983 despite a statement by Cryan that the bank had not sought government assistance in its negotiations with the DoJ. Shares in Deutsche Bank, which has been troubled by persistent reports about its financial ill health, have fallen 55 percent over the past year.
According to a report in the Financial Times, on a market capitalisation basis it now ranks 78th among global banks, “just below Malaysia’s Public Bank and Brazil’s Itausa Investimentos Itau.”
Last month, the International Monetary Fund described Deutsche Bank as the weakest link in the global financial system and its position has only worsened since then with the imposition of the DoJ fine.
The fine imposed on it was triple the amount that Deutsche Bank had put aside for that purpose. If paid in full it would, in the words of a BBC report, “put the bank’s finances under life-threatening pressure” as it is only worth $18 billion. Even if the amount were half it would still pose a “serious problem.”
The problems for Deutsche Bank have been growing all year and its financial position raised concerns during the period of market turbulence in January and February, when bank shares fell sharply worldwide. In February, Cryan issued a statement to reassure staff and investors that its position was “rock solid.”
Since then, however, its position has only got worse as efforts to restore profitability by cutting costs have proved unsuccessful. Then came the DoJ fine. It has sparked fears that businesses that were supposed to provide it with a boost will not go ahead because counterparties will be reluctant to deal with the bank and it will start to lose revenue because of the bad news surrounding it.
As the British Daily Telegraph commented, if the German government does not stand behind the bank, then other banks and financial institutions will start to be very nervous in dealing with it. “As we know from 2008, once confidence starts to evaporate, a bank is in big, big trouble” and “if Deutsche goes down, it is looking increasingly likely that it will take Merkel with it – and quite possibly the euro as well.”
Like a flock of vultures, hedge funds have been circling with a number of them shorting Deutsche Bank shares in the expectation they will rapidly fall.
Whatever the final amount of the fine, Deutsche Bank would almost certainly have to raise additional capital to meet it. But here it encounters a major problem because the low and even negative interest rate regime of the European Central Bank has hit the business models of all major banks. As one commentator on the US CNBC business channel noted: “How do you raise more capital if your profits are declining?”
The turmoil surrounding Deutsche Bank is only a particularly sharp expression of the developing crisis of the entire European banking system flowing from the 2008 financial meltdown. Speaking on Monday, European Central Bank president Mario Draghi said there was an “overcapacity of banks in Europe” and that government should create the legislative conditions for consolidation to take place.
“Do you really want to have a system that only reaches the right dimension after protracted failures? Banks in Europe should be strong and profitable. One of the reasons for low profitability is exactly overcapacity,” he said.
If Deutsche Bank were to fail it would not stop there. Because of its connections with other banks and financial institutions, the effects would rip through the entire European financial system and extend globally. No one knows the full extent of the consequences but some commentators have already pointed to the possibility of a “Lehman moment” – a reference to the collapse of the US investment bank Lehman Brothers which sparked the global collapse of 2008.
First in line for a major crisis would be the Italian banking system, where it is estimated that there are €360 billion of bad loans on the books, four times the level in 2008 and comprising 17 percent of total loans outstanding.
In addition to mounting economic problems, the crisis surrounding Deutsche Bank has a major political component. It is significant that the action against the banks has been launched not by the regulatory authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission, but by an arm of the White House, the Department of Justice.
The size of the fine also points in the same direction. “The DoJ is asking for 10 times more from Deutsche than they asked from any of its US peers, with no disclosure—it is extortion,” Davide Serra, the founder of a company which invests in the debt of European banks told the Financial Times.
The imposition of the fine has come in the midst of rising political and economic tensions between the US and the European Union and particularly Germany. The decision by the EU to impose a €13 billion payment on Apple for back taxes over a deal with the Irish government which brought strong opposition from major US corporations and the US treasury.
The row over Apple was followed by statements from Germany and France that have virtually ended negotiations over the US push to establish a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to cover its trade and financial dealings in Europe. Together with the Trans Pacific Partnership, covering the Asian region, but excluding China, the US regards the TTIP as crucial to maintaining its position of global economic dominance.
But earlier this month German finance minister Sigmar Gabriel rendered negotiations dead in the water, declaring that “we as European naturally cannot submit to American demands.”
The crisis over Deutsche Bank points to two interconnected processes. First, far from having been resolved, all the contradictions of the global financial system that exploded eight years ago not only remain, but have worsened. Second, that despite all rhetoric about cooperation and collaboration issuing from major economic summit meetings of world leaders, the global economy and financial system is increasingly becoming a battleground of each nation against all.
The first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was a political and cultural abomination. It demonstrated, in both style and substance, the thoroughgoing decay of American capitalist society over many decades.
It says a great deal about the US political system that, out of 330 million people in America, the choice for president has been narrowed down to these two individuals, both members of the financial aristocracy—they last met face-to-face when the Clintons attended Trump’s third wedding in 2005—and both deeply and deservedly hated by a large majority of the population.
There was not the slightest intellectual substance or reasoned political content to the so-called “debate.” No topic was addressed with either intelligence or honesty. Both candidates lied without effort or shame, slinging insults and prepared one-liners against each other while posturing as advocates of working people.
The capitalist two-party system in America has never put a premium on intelligence or truth. It has always been based on politicians who represent the interests of a narrow stratum at the top of society, while pretending to speak for all of the people. But by 2016, this pretense has lost all credibility.
Trump is the personification of business gangsterism, a billionaire who built his fortune on swindles, bankruptcies, the theft of wages and deals with the Mafia. When Clinton charged him with profiteering from the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market, which touched off the 2008 financial collapse, he retorted, “That’s business.” When she accused him of paying no taxes on his vast fortune, he boasted, “That makes me smart.”
Clinton is the personification of political gangsterism, deeply implicated in the crimes of American capitalism over a quarter century, from the destruction of social welfare programs, to the criminalization of minority youth, to the launching of imperialist wars that have killed millions. At one point in the debate she declared that her strategy for defeating ISIS was focused on the assassination of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. She alluded to her role in “taking out” Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and said she would make such killings “an organizing principle” of her foreign policy.
Clinton came into the debate as the favorite of the media and the American ruling elite, a tested servant of the financial aristocracy who can be relied on to serve as the political figurehead for the military-intelligence apparatus. She found her voice in the event as the representative of identity politics in the service of imperialism, making repeated appeals along racial and gender lines while threatening Russia with war and presenting the crisis in the Middle East as something that could be resolved by killing the right people.
Trump has attracted support by appearing to give voice to anger over the catastrophic decline in the social position of working people, citing plant closings, mass unemployment, rising poverty, the deterioration of roads, schools, airports, etc. But he offers no solution except the elimination of every restraint on the operations of big business: slashing taxes on corporations in half and scrapping business regulations.
The fascistic billionaire made perhaps the only truthful statement in the debate when he declared that American capitalism faced disaster after a “recovery” that was already the worst since the Great Depression. “We are in a big fat ugly bubble that’s going to come crashing down as soon the Fed raises interest rates,” he said. This recalls the remark by President George W. Bush during the financial meltdown of September 2008, when he blurted out, “This sucker’s going down.”
The media apologists of the Democrats and Republicans blabbed both before and after the debate about the need for fact-checking of the candidates. But the entire debate was a lie, from beginning to end. The falsehoods uttered by Trump and Clinton are picayune compared to the overarching lie that these candidates offer a genuine choice to the American people.
Whatever the outcome of the election, whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton replaces Barack Obama in the White House, the next administration will be the most reactionary government in the history of the country, committed to a program of imperialist war, social austerity and attacks on democratic rights.
The task of the working class is to prepare itself politically for the struggles that will be generated by the drive to war and the deepening crisis of world capitalism.
This interview by Jürgen Todenhöfer was first published in German on September 26 2016 by the Kölner Stadtanzeiger, the major newspaper in the Cologne region. (The interview was copied and translated to English by Bernhard for educational and academic purposes, thanks to Moon of Alabama.)
It was the seventh trip by my son Frederic and me to the civil war country Syria. We were there for 13 days. Words can only barely describe the extend of damage and suffering on both sides.
We conducted the interview ten days ago with a commander of the al-Qaida branch “Jabhat al-Nusra”. Abu al-Ezz reported quite openly about his financiers Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. We were able to exactly research the identity of the man and know practically everything about him.
Interview in the stone quarry in Aleppo
The interview was arranged by a rebel from Aleppo. I have had contacts to Syrian rebels for years. It was conducted outside of Aleppo in a quarry in direct sight- and shooting-distance of Jabhat al-Nusra and could only be reached safely by a member of al-Nusra.
His fighters were partially not masked, i.e. easily identifiable. Part of his statements were nearly verbally confirmed shortly thereafter by a mufti in Aleppo. Other assertions about the lack of interest of rebels towards a ceasefire and an international aid-convoy also bore out. Just like his predictions about planned military activities in several cities of Syria.
This is where the interview was conducted
Abu al-Ezz, commander, says about Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda): “We are one part of al-Qaeda. Our principles are: Fighting vice, pureness and security. Our affairs and our way have changed. Israel, for example, is now supporting us, because Israel is at war with Syria and with Hizbullah.
America also changed its opinion about us. Originally “IS” and us were one group. But “IS” was used in the interests of big states like America, for political reasons, and was steered away from our principles. It became clear to us that most of their leaders work with secret security services. We, Jabhat al-Nusra, have our own way. In the past they with us, they were our supporters.
Our aim is the downfall of the dictatorial regime, the tyrannical regime, the regime of the apostate. Our aim is the conduct of conquests, like [the great Arab general] Khaled ibn al-Walid made them. First in the Arab world and then in Europe.”
Part 2 – The Interview by Jürgen Todenhöfer with the rebel commander Abu al-Ezz
Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?
Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the “TOW” missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the “BMs” – multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American “TOW” that we have the situation in some regions under control.
To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?
No, the missiles were give directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the “road” was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.
What did those officers do?
Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras …
Were there also American experts?
Yes, experts from several countries.
Including Americans?
Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer “Battalion 47”. Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the “al-Muslimiya” infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.
From the governments or from private persons?
From the governments.
The fight is difficult, the regime is strong and it has support from Russia …?
We will fight until the downfall of the regime. We will fight Russia and the West because the West does not stand on our side. The West only sends us mujahedin, it facilitates the way of those fighters. Why doesn’t the West support us properly? We have many fighters from Germany, France, Great Britain, America, from all western countries.
You have many fighters from Europe in Aleppo with the “al-Nusra front”?
Many, many, many!
How many?
Many.
What do you think about the ceasefire?
We do not recognize the ceasefire. We will reposition our groups. We will undertake in the next, in a few days an overwhelming attack against the regime. We have rearranged all our armed forces in all provinces, in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama.
You do not want those 40 trucks with aid supplies to bring those into the eastern part of Aleppo?
We have demands. As longs as the regime is positioned along Castello road, in al-Malah and in the northern areas we will not let those trucks pass. The regime must retreat from all areas in order for us to let the trucks pass. If a truck comes in despite that, we will arrest the driver.
Why did a few of your groups pull back a kilometer or 500 meters from the Castello road?
The regime used highly developed weapons against us. We received a backlash. That is why we silently retreated, to recover and to attack the regime anew. But this attack must lead to the downfall of the regime.
So that was a trick, a military tactic?
Yes, it was a military tactic.
Was the aim of this tactic to receive food or the reallocation of fighters?
We did not agree to the ceasefire.
Does that hold only for the al-Nusra Front or for all other groups, the rest of your allies?
The applies to all our integrated groups, who are our allies.
Islamic Front, Islamic Army?
They are all with us. We are all the al-Nusra Front. A groups is created and calls itself “Islamic Army”, or “Fateh al-Sham”. Each group has its own name but their believe is homogeneous. The general name is al-Nusra Front. One person has, for example, 2,000 fighters. Then he creates from these a new group and calls it “Ahrar al-Sham”. Brothers, who’s believe, thoughts and aims are identical to those of al-Nusra Front.
Is that your own opinion or also the opinion of higher management levels?
That is the general opinion. But if someone comes to you and makes you a ‘moderate fighter’ and offers you to eat and to drink, will you accept that or not?
450,000 people were killed in this war. I have been to Aleppo and Homs. Many parts are destroyed. If the war continues the whole country will be destroyed. Millions will die. … In Germany we once had the ‘Thirty Years’ War’ …
We are now only 5 years at war, that is comparatively short!
Would you accept someone from the Assad-regime within a transitional government?
We accept no one from the Assad-regime or from the Free Syrian Army, which is called moderate. Our aim is the downfall of the regime and the founding of an Islamic state according to the Islamic sharia.
The people of Aloush, who traveled to Geneva for negotiations, accepted a transitional government.
There are Syrian mercenaries. Aloush fights with the al-Nusra Front. The groups Turkey houses and from which the Free Syrian Army was created have earlier been with al-Nusra Front. These people are weak people, they received a lot of money, they sold themselves. They must follow the orders of their sponsors.
The “Islamic Army and the “ISlamic Front” negotiate in Geneva
Because their leaders were produced in the West. They are counseled and paid by western secret services and the secret services of the Gulf states to fulfill the aims of those countries.
We are here at the most forward observation point of the Sheik Said area. This are is under our control. Behind those houses and al-Majbal are regime soldiers. Our armed forces are 200 meters from here.
On the face of it, Trump is Reagan on steroids. His towering size, his nativist US supremacism, his down-home talk, and his reality-show confidence make him ideal for the role of bullying and big lies from the oval office.
He is America come to meet itself in larger-than-life image to rejuvenate it as its pride slips away in third-world conditions and a multi-polar world.
While Trump’s narrative is that the American Dream seeks recovery again, the dominant media and political elite relentlessly denounce him as an implicit fascist and disastrous fake.
Something deeper is afoot. An untapped historic resentment is boiling up from underneath which has long been unspeakable on the political stage. Trump has mined it and proposed a concrete solution always denied of his candidacy. From his promise to halve the Pentagon’s budget to getting the Congress off corporate-donation payrolls, the public money that the big corporate lobbies stand to lose from a Trump presidency are off the charts. But his attackers dare not recognize these explosive issues because they are all part of the problem.
The public money stakes may be bigger than the US corporate stakes behind the foreign wars the US state has initiated since 1991. The takeaway promised by Trump’s policies threaten almost every big lobby now in control of US government purse strings. It grounds in the military-industrial complex spending close to $2,000,000,000 a day for its endless new untested weapons and foreign wars both of which Trump opposes. But the cut-off of hundreds of billions of public giveaways to the Big Corps do not end here. They hit almost every wide-mouthed transnational corporate siphon into the US Treasury, taxpayers’ pockets and the working majority of America. Masses of American citizens increasingly without living wages and benefits and in increasing public squalor and insecurity are paying attention to what the political establishment and corporate media have long buried and continue to silence.
Trump has raised the great dispossession from impotence into the establishment’s face, and this is why he is a contagion on the American political scene. He is pervasively mocked, accused and slandered in non-stop public fireworks of ad hominem hits, but the counter-attacks never engage what Trump has set his sights on – the long stripping of America by corporate globalization selecting for the limitless enrichment of the very rich living off an ever-growing take from public coffers and the impoverishment of America’s working people. A primal rage unites the political establishment across party lines, but they can’t say why. No defaming scorn and abuse is off limits, but Trump’s underlying betrayal of the ruling game remains unspeakable on the stage.
The electoral dynamite of all the Americans who have lost all their good blue-collar jobs, social benefits and public infrastructures is recognized only in class condescension. But the facts cannot be denied of a corporate globalization effectively stripping the lower middle classes and the public realm itself with no-one in Washington establishment saying a word against the greatest transfer of wealth to the 1% in history.
Trump may deserve back as bad he gives. But this understanding keeps our eyes on the ego-contest which is the standard spectacle to avoid the real issues. The personal attacks only tells us how deep the rupture has become between Trump’s campaign and the establishment on the issues kept out of sight. This is why the corporate politicians and media are almost as wound into one-way demonization of Trump as they are when they beat the drums of war against a designated Enemy abroad.
In the end, it may get to him – as when he tries to find angry millions again from onside with an evangelical trumpet of abortion-is-murder just before the primary in Wisconsin.
Trump is a shameless opportunist, no doubt. Yet we continue to revolve within an ad hominem circle until we go deeper than the establishment morality tale of the evil of the stigma object – the oldest propaganda trick in the book. The major money interests that are really at stake in the conflict between Trump and the political-economic establishment remain unconnected and blocked out. “Who will stop Trump’ is not only now asked across America, but the world’s media in China too. But nothing is less talked about than the globally powerful interests he has promised to rein back from the public troughs bleeding the country’s capacities to build for and to employ its people. On this topic, there is only silence or abusive distortion frothing from the mouth.
Joining the Dots of the Great Silence
Eventually people may ask why the establishment unanimously abhors Trump across party divisions which are otherwise unbridgeable. Even if he is a caricature of American privilege and self-promotion, who else could fight the corrupt corporate-state and media establishment? Who else could ever get public support from dispossessed masses and from inside the Republican Party base itself? Who else could take on the supra-dominant corporate interests of the war state, drug monopoly, health insurance racket, lobby-run foreign policy, off-shore tax evasion, and global trade with only corporate rights to profit taking jobs in the tens of millions from home workers, and still hold a large and right-wing voter base onside?
Conversely, what else than Trump’s threat to the corporate-state establishment can explain the unity of voice and venom against an American paragon of wealth and chupzpah? What else could motivate a cross-party and corporate media hate campaign where there is nothing else in common across the condemning voices? Only those citizens depending on the deep system corruptions he promises to reverse are really threatened by Trump’s candidacy. But how do these huge private interests go on getting away with a corporate-lobby state transferring every more public wealth and control to them at the expense of the American majority and their common interest when most people already dislike and are systemically exploited by them? They get away with it by no-one being able to do anything about it.
Trump represents a threat to these gargantuan public-trough interests that even the super clean and informed Ralph Nader candidacy for president never did. The corporate media and party machines just shut him down on the electoral stage so few even knew he was a presidential candidate. You can’t do that with Trump. That is the very big problem for the otherwise seamless political and media establishment who are all in on the fabulous payoffs of this corporate state game. Trump’s entire strategy is based on getting public attention, and he is a master at it, unbuyably rich, and the most watched person in America across the country and the world. He can’t be shut up. Personal stigmatization and attack without let-up are the only way to gag his policies and turn the tide against him at the same time.
Maybe it will work in the end. It’s how disastrous and bankrupting foreign aggressions and wars have been sold whatever the ruinous costs to the public paying for them.
Until Wisconsin
When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon’s budget “by 50%”. No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. Trump also says that the US “must be neutral, an honest broker” on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma is also called out with “$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices”. The even more powerful HMO’s are confronted by the possibility of a “one-payer system”, the devil incarnate in America’s corporate-welfare state.
Trump even challenges “the Enemy” cornerstone of US ideology when he says “wouldn’t it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?” Not very fascist of him. He was also open to nationalizing the Wall Street banks after 2008. None of this sees the light of day in the hate-Trump culture that been effectively mounted across even left-right divisions. Most of all, Trump rejects the whole misnamed “free trade” global system because it has “hollowed out the lives of American workers” with rights to corporations to move anywhere to get cheaper labour and import back into the US tariff-free. But again the connected meaning is repressed. That Trump also wants to get the US out of foreign wars at the same time, the other great pillar of corporate globalization, is the real danger to the transnational corporate state he has set in motion.
All these policies threaten only the ruling money interests of America that depend on the superpower public purse to extend their transnational monopolies and multiply their wealth. This is the real establishment interest that has so far evaded the glare of publicity and critique of the Donald Trump phenomenon, bigger now with Bernie Sanders than any political challenge to the US system since the 1960’s. Trump is certainly not a working-class hero. He is a pure capitalist, with all the furies of private interest and greed that capitalism selects for. But at this time he is a capitalist who is not rich from looting the public purse as the biggest annual cash flow, nor from exporting the costs of labor and taxes to foreign jurisdictions with subhuman standards that come back to the US as “necessary to compete”. Trump has initiated a long overdue recognition of parasite capitalism eating out the life capacities of the US itself.
Prof. John McMurtry is author of The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure (Pluto)
State-sponsored deaths further expose the racism and national oppression in the “Wall Street of the South” and beyond
Two African Americans were killed in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 20 and 21 respectively. Keith Lamont Scott, 43, a married father of seven, was gunned down by police while his wife begged for his life.
Police claimed that Scott had a weapon in his possession. His family said that he was sitting in a vehicle reading a book waiting to pick his child from school.
Corporate media reports have said a gun was found at the scene of the killing. Nonetheless, North Carolina is an open carry state and therefore why would it be an automatic death sentence at the hands of the police for being in possession of a weapon? White men frequently walk around cities and rural areas throughout the United States with weapons yet they are not routinely executed by law-enforcement.
Scott’s death sparked immediate demonstrations where traffic was blocked and fires were set in the streets. As protest actions continued on September 21, local law-enforcement agents launched chemical gases and lethal projectiles at a peaceful crowd of several hundred people seeking to convey their outrage at the arbitrary use of force by the police.
During the course of the attacks by the police dressed in riot gear standing in para-military formation, another 26-year-old African American, Justin Carr, was shot in the head. Several hours after Carr was wounded it was announced by the major U.S.-based television news networks that he was dead. Later this claim was modified saying he was on life support. Soon it was said that Carr was in a critical condition. It was not until the following day that another report confirmed his death.
Meanwhile the Charlotte city administration declared a “state of emergency” and requested the deployment of the North Carolina National Guard. A curfew was imposed as demonstrations continued through Sunday September 25 which even targeted the National Football League game hosted by the North Carolina Panthers professional team.
Carr’s death was assumed to have been a direct result of police actions. However, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chief Kerr Putney, also an African American, denied that Carr was shot by one their agents. Later a suspect in Carr’s killing, African American Rayquan Borum, 21, was arrested in connection with Carr’s death.
In a report published by the Charlotte Observer, “The mother of 26-year-old Justin Carr, who was fatally shot during protests in uptown on Wednesday night, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday (September 23) that her son died for a cause. Vivian Carr said her son wanted to tell his grandmother, who marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., that he had taken part in the protest.” (September 25)
This same report went on to emphasize that “Police said they found Carr suffering from a gunshot wound in the 100 block of East Trade Street at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday. Carr was shot in the head, Observer news partner WBTV reported, citing a police report. Charlotte-Mecklenburg police on Friday arrested Rayquan Borum, 21, of Charlotte on charges of first-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon and being a fugitive from another state.”
A Nationwide Pattern
These two deaths in Charlotte compounded the tragic news of yet another police killing of African American Terence Crutcher, 40, of Tulsa, Oklahoma on September 16. Crutcher in response to police encroachment was standing with hands raised high when he was shot to death by a white female officer Betty Jo Shelby. Following the same police narrative, the office said she felt threatened by this unarmed African American man.
Shelby was charged with first degree manslaughter in Crutcher’s death. A memorial service for the father of four was held in Tulsa on September 24 at Antioch Baptist Church with nearly 1,000 people in attendance.
An attorney for the Crutcher family, Damario Solomon-Simmons, quoted statistics which illustrate the violent role of the police in the U.S. where law-enforcement agents disproportionately kill African Americans. The overwhelming majority of these cases result in no disciplinary action or prosecution of the police.
Simmons emphasized that “It could have been me, … just like Terence, I’m 40 years old, and just like Terence, I’m bald-headed, and just like Terence, some people think I look like a bad dude, but just like I am, Terence was not a bad dude.” (Tulsa World)
During the course of targeting of the deceased man a police officer overhead referred to Crutcher as a “bad dude,” while a law-enforcement helicopter circled above the area where the execution took place. In additional comments during the memorial, Solomon-Simmons called for “full justice” for Crutcher, stressing that the killing was not justified.
Simmons demanded the conviction of Officer Shelby. The lawyer also suggested that the City of Tulsa provide for Crutcher’s children. Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett also spoke at the funeral expressing his regret for the African American’s death at the hands of police.
Demonstrations Continue While State Actors Remains Adamant
State violence against African Americans is rooted in the history of slavery and national oppression which is the cornerstone of the American republic. It was the theft of the land of the Indigenous people and the enslavement of Africans that laid the basis for the advancement of the U.S. as the leading imperialist country.
The police, city administrations, courts and prosecutors reinforce the racist and exploitative structures by their failure to indict cops in the killings of African Americans and others through the utilization of prosecutors and judges who provide a pseudo-legal rationale for these acts of government-sanctioned terrorism. Those who survive the racial profiling along with stop and frisk and broken windows policing, are flooded into the correctional system where millions remain incarcerated and under some form of law-enforcement supervision.
These killings have received far more media attention in recent years due to the advent of social media and alternative forms of communications often documented, directed and shared by civilians who are either victims of the state violence or witnesses in close proximity.
The partner of Philando Castile, Diamond Reynolds, streamed his execution live over Facebook which reached billions. Even though the initial post was taken down, in the meantime it was copied and reposted. These police executions of Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota and Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge, Louisiana sparked demonstrations throughout the U.S. and Europe.
Reynolds in utilizing social media was acting in the tradition of Ida B. Wells-Barnett who during the late 19th century through her work as a journalist brought to light the horrendous conditions that African Americans were subjected to some three decades after the Civil War and the ostensible ending of involuntary servitude. Wells-Barnett has been resurrected in the multitudes as African Americans and other people of conscience documented and disseminated images of the violent actions of the racist system.
An article published by International Business Times said “Of the 990 people who were killed by police officers in 2015, the Washington Post reported 258 of them were Black. So far in 2016, there have been 708 documented deaths in police shootings, 173 of which have resulted in the deaths of African-Americans. Although there has been increased media attention surrounding the police killings of Black people — on Saturday (September 24) videos were released of Keith Scott’s death after he was shot by a police officer in Charlotte, North Carolina — statistics show the number of police shootings has increased among all races.” (Sept. 25)
The façade of American democracy is being torn asunder. The purported “post-racial society” proclaimed by pundits in the aftermath of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, has been exposed as the subterfuge that it seeks to proliferate.
These atrocious killings of African Americans continue under the administration of the first self-identified Black president. Obama attends the funerals of slain police but has never paid tribute to any African American gunned down by the state.
Such behavior fosters the disrespect and defiance of world leaders from China to the Philippines against the U.S. government. Imperialism with a black face is no different, and perhaps even more treacherous, than the classical world domination which has characterized American domestic and foreign policy since its inception.
As top US officials admit they do not know who attacked the Aleppo relief convoy all prospects of an impartial investigation fade away.
One of the overlooked comments US General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made at the Senate hearing on Thursday, concerned the recent attack on the relief convoy near Aleppo, which has recently been so much in the news.
“I don’t have the facts. There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians are responsible.”
(bold italics added)
And here is what US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said, testifying at the same Senate hearing alongside General Dunford
“The Russians are responsible for this strikewhether they conducted it or not.”
(bold italics added)
In other words, despite the tidal wave of claims which have been flowing saying the Russians attacked the convoy, and despite the claims to that effect made by the anonymous US officials who have been prowling behind the scenes through the Western media, the US does not actually know that the Russians attacked the convoy. US General Dunford “doesn’t have the facts” and US Defence Secretary Carter cannot say whether the Russians “conducted (the attack) or not”
I presume Dunford and Carter, respectively the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US Secretary of Defence, are the sort of people who would know if US intelligence was reporting that the Russians carried out the attack. I can see no reason why they would fail to say that the Russians carried out the attack if that is what US intelligence was actually reporting. The fact that they are saying that they don’t know must mean that US intelligence – and therefore the US government – doesn’t know either.
Basically what the US is saying is: we know it wasn’t us; it could only therefore have been the Syrians or the Russians; only the Russians have the necessary technology and two of their SU24s were in the area; therefore it must have been the Russians.
This is not knowledge or evidence but a chain of inference.
To confuse matters, judging by a piece by the Moon of Alabama, the US story appears to have shifted so that the US is now apparently claiming that both the Syrians and the Russians jointly carried out the attack.
It is sometimes possible to infer the truth of who was behind a particular attack by looking at the evidence, but can it actually be done in this case? The short answer I would say is no.
Since the attack is being called by some a war crime, it would seem a basic step first to secure and inspect what in that case would be a crime scene before drawing any inferences and making any accusations. Almost a week after the attack not only has that not been done, but no one seems to be in any hurry to do it.
With the crime scene not secured, the possibility of contamination or outright manipulation of the evidence is very real, especially given the strong incentive to do so of the Jihadi fighters who are in physical control of it. After all that is what many claim the Jihadi fighters did to the scene of the chemical attack on Ghouta in August 2013.
In light of this photographs which have been circulating, which supposedly show the fin of a Russian bomb at the scene of the attack, can carry no weight, and must be disregarded, especially as the bomb in question appears to be one of the most commonly used in Syria, which would make finding and planting a sample of one at the scene of the attack a relatively straightforward matter.
In the absence of any actual evidence that the Russians carried out the attack, the US and the Western media have fallen back on ridiculing what the Russians have said about it. Unfortunately the clever way this has been done – notably by US Secretary of State Kerry at the UN Security Council – has confused many people, including someone as level headed as the veteran British correspondent Patrick Cockburn.
Briefly, and contrary to the impression given by Kerry and others, the Russians have not said how the convoy was attacked or by whom or how it came to be destroyed. They have merely denied that they or the Syrians did it, and have provided commentaries on what they say is some of the evidence they have or which they have seen.
The Russian claims about armed Jihadis near the convoy and the US Predator drone in the area do not look to me like claims that the convoy was attacked because it was being used as cover by the Jihadis, or that the Jihadis blew up the convoy with a mortar, or that the US Predator drone attacked it – all claims I have seen alleged that the Russians have made. The Russians have never made those claims, though others have done so on the strength of the commentary and evidence the Russians have provided.
Rather these Russian claims seem to me intended to counter US claims that the Russians “must have” attacked the convoy because two of their SU24s were in the area. The point the Russians are making is that if their SU24s were in the area, then so were the Jihadis and the US (in the form of the Predator drone), and to construe that it “must have been” the Russians who attacked the convoy merely because their SU24s happened to be in the area is therefore unwarranted.
As for the analysis of the video evidence that the convoy was set on fire, as the Russians have themselves admitted,that is purely speculative. Without a proper inspection of the scene of the convoy attack one simply cannot know.
In my experience the invariable response of someone trying to cover up their involvement in a crime is to hit on a single made-up story of how the crime was committed, and to stick to it whilst providing an alibi. That that is not what the Russians are doing does not prove them innocent, but it is definitely not the sign of guilt some are taking it for. If anything it suggests that the Russians genuinely do not know what happened to the convoy, which might be why they are calling for the attack on the convoy to be independently investigated.
All other things being equal, the fact the Russians are calling for an independent investigation also suggests that they are unlikely to have done it. As a general rule someone who has committed a crime is usually the last person to call for an independent investigation of the crime, especially if the crime scene is not in their control. If the Russians did attack the convoy – or if the Syrians attacked the convoy and the Russians know the Syrians attacked it – then the Russian demand for an investigation looks like a frankly reckless double-bluff.
Again none of this proves that the Russians are innocent. Moreover anyone who wants to dispute the commentary or the evidence the Russians have put forward is at liberty to do so, though they do their credibility no favours if they do so by resorting to sarcasm and ridicule. However it is interesting that so far it is the Russians who are calling for an investigation whilst none of those who are accusing them is doing so.
In the meantime I do not think it is worthwhile speculating on how the convoy was destroyed or by whom. I do not think anywhere near enough facts are known to make it possible for anyone to say. In the absence of a proper investigation – or even an inspection of the site of the attack – any claim can be no more than a guess. If people like Dunford and Carter don’t have the necessary facts then it is impossible that anyone else commenting on what happened from afar can have either.
Sadly I must also say that I do not think that how the convoy came to be attacked or by whom will ever be known. Quite simply those who are in a position to find out the truth are not interested in doing so.
For the US the attack on the convoy came at a very convenient moment, when it was on the defensive following its attack on the Syrian troops defending Deir Ezzor. Whilst that does not mean it was the US which attacked the convoy or which ordered the attack on the convoy – for the record, I don’t think the US did either of those things – it does mean that the US has no incentive to find out the truth of what happened in case that might undermine a story that has served it so well.
With the US’s proxies in control of the scene of the attack that all but guarantees that no proper investigation of this incident will ever take place, which in turn means that the truth of what happened will never become known.
U.S. enthusiasts for the New Cold War with Russia appear to be ignoring less-belligerent orders from President Obama and pushing for a dangerous escalation of tensions, reports ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.
In the aftermath of the U.S. attack on the Syrian army positions overlooking and commanding the Dier A-Zor airfield – the airfield, whose daily “Berlin air-bridge” style flights, are the sole lifeline to a city long besieged by ISIS – the Russian U.N. Ambassador asked a pertinent rhetorical question at the United Nations Security Council: Who is running U.S. policy: Is it the Pentagon or the White House?
There was no official response, of course, but one was not necessary: the New York Times editorial board gave us the answer in its verdict of Sept. 15: Praising the U.S. Secretary of State for his energetic, but “quixotic” diplomacy, the “Board” wrote:
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
“The [Syria ceasefire] agreement also has powerful critics inside the Obama administration, including Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. On Tuesday, Pentagon officials refused to say whether they would comply with their part of the deal, which calls on the United States to share information with the Russians on Islamic State targets in Syria if the cease-fire holds for seven days. This would be an unusual and possibly risky collaboration with a Russian regime that has become increasingly adversarial and could profit from learning American military secrets.”
What is so surprising here is the non-surprise evinced by the editorial writers of the New York Times. The Board blandly states that the Defense Secretary and the Pentagon might not comply. Not a hint of surprise is evident at the constitutional implications of this open defiance of Presidential authority.
No, rather the Board seems to view it as quite natural and commendable that Carter should refuse to comply with this “unusual and risky” proposition. But this was not some “proposition for collaboration.” This was an agreed formal accord between the United States and another state – reached after lengthy negotiations, and done with Presidential mandate.
In brief, President Obama’s authority is no more – if it runs against the settled opinion of the Pentagon, the CIA, the New York Times, the Washington Post and of the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate. It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that Obama’s grudging détente with a Russian President that he personally, viscerally dislikes, is now no more than diplomatic chatter.
Professor Stephen Cohen, the eminent Russia scholar, has pointed to the parallel when U.S. hardliners in the national security bureaucracy sank presidential attempts at détente with Russia. One such case was the CIA sending Gary Powers in his U2 spy plane over Russia, contrary to President Dwight Eisenhower’s agreement with Russia (subsequently only to be shot down by the Russians).
Challenging Obama’s Authority
Cross-accusations are flying over who did what in Syria these last days, but what comes through is that Obama is facing likely insurmountable dissidence, even open disobedience, within his own Administration.
The Pentagon, headquarters of the U.S. Defense Department, as viewed with the Potomac River and Washington, D.C., in the background. (Defense Department photo)
This Syrian “ceasefire” will not be recovered – not just for the bitter exchange of recriminations, which have irreversibly crossed certain unstated boundaries – but because, separately, we have a detailed and compelling account (from an American military insider) on How US Forces Sabotage White House Policy, Gone Disastrously Wrong with Covert Ops in Syria.
It is clear from this account that – what has long been suspected – is true: that the U.S. does not, and cannot, control the jihadi monster it has created, owing to warring disparate factions within the U.S. “‘security state,” turning a very blind eye to the nature and true intent of those it has been training, financing and arming.
In other words, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and CIA Director John Brennan cannot deliver on the ceasefire, which may go to some way to explain the turmoil swirling around Washington. Did the White House fully comprehend how much the various U.S. “special” services were working at cross-purposes, and thereby undermining any real prospect of U.S. control, cutting away his negotiating stand?
The other aspect to this may be the nagging suspicion that Donald Trump has been given the space now to intervene with his “I told you so” – in terms of who “created” the jihadi “monster” – if he so chooses.
The “image” of concerted, wide, international will to resolve the Syrian conflict has been shattered – leaving only the splintered interests of diverse insurgent movements in Syria, and the polarized rhetoric of states outside. The Syria conflict most likely will enter a new, troubling phase – and with it too, Ukraine will probably become more intractable, as the two civil conflicts seem to be paired.
Noticeably, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who is playing “on-off-on” with the Europeans, will be in New York meeting with Hillary Clinton, whereas Donald Trump has declined to meet him. Are the Democrats planning to double-down with Poroshenko?
So where next? Well, the Russian Duma elections have come and gone. They offered no surprises, but that does not mean that that they were without significance. With hindsight, we may conclude that they were more than just routine.
The party of the ruling authority, United Russia, won – albeit on a low turnout, but then Duma elections do not particularly stir imaginations among Russians. Putin is not strictly a member of U.R., but the party is directly associated with him. It is tied to him – and it won essentially on Putin’s popular coat-tails – and despite its poor economic record.
What was significant were two things: firstly, U.R. passed the 300-seat threshold. With 343 seats in the 450-seat parliament, UR now has a “super majority.” It can now change the Russian constitution – and that is important. Secondly, the three pro-Western, liberal parties contesting the elections achieved only a combined total of 4 percent of votes cast. Individually, they achieved but only 1 to 2 percent. And the threshold for entry by any one party into parliament is 5 percent. As Professor Cohen notes uncharacteristically bluntly: “The pro-western, liberal, political movement in Russia is dead – and was killed by Washington.”
Russian Election Empowers Putin
In short, the economic sanctions and consequent belt-tightening resulting for Russians have not harmed Putin one jot. Russians blame the West (but still heartily dislike Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s economic team). That is now clear to all.
Russian President Vladimir Putin after the military parade on Red Square, May 9, 2016 Moscow. (Photo from: http://en.kremlin.ru)
So, President Putin is now in a position – with a Duma “super-majority” – to make changes. The rumors are that big changes indeed are in prospect. One well-known Russia commentator, suggests wryly that Putin’s real opposition lies not in the Duma, but in the “party of power” itself:
“The truth is, the real opposition to Putin is precisely that [of] the economic-financial ministers of the Medvedev government and all the factions which they represent: bankers, IMF-drones, corrupt businessmen from the 1990s who hate Putin because he does not allow them to steal like in the past, all the ex-Nomenklatura and their kids who made a killing in the 1990s and whose heart is in the West, the Atlantic Integrationists à la Kudrin who are basically ‘Washington consensus types’ and who hate the Russian people for voting for Putin.
“That is the real opposition; and that opposition is far more dangerous than the US and NATO combined. And for that opposition the result of the [Duma] elections is a crushing defeat. Why? Because besides the hyper-official ‘power party’ United Russia, all the other parties in the Duma are far more anti-capitalist and anti-American than Putin. For the Empire, ‘United Russia’ is as good as it will ever get. Any alternative will be far, far worse.” So writesthe Saker.
And here is the point: the situation in Syria for the coming months seems set to aggravate, but not to the point of a strategic defeat for Russia. Russia’s military intervention, and the shift by Turkey – though still not certain – makes it unlikely that the U.S. can achieve its sought-after “regime change.” In Ukraine, the “cards” are largely in Russian hands – and the Europeans understand this.
But in parallel to rising tensions in Syria and Ukraine and NATO build-up in the Baltics, the latest G20, by contrast, signalled the rising geo-strategic co-operation between Russia and China – and now the Duma elections promise Putin the possibility of making strategic shifts within Russia itself. Shifts in economic policy – almost certainly – but also Putin may feel more confident in his posture vis-à-vis the West.
This is not to say that Putin wishes to escalate tension versus the West. There is no evidence for that at all (as the deputy head of NATO has confirmed). But the Russian President no longer has to look over his shoulder – either. He can afford to wait out the West’s own economic and political crises.
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West.
The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption.
We don’t know much about Trump, and anti-Trump propaganda rules in the place of facts.
But we know many facts about Hillary. We know about her violation of classification laws and the refusal of the Democratic administration to do anything about it. The Democrats prefer to control the White House than to enforce the law, another nail into the coffin in which the rule of law in the US lies.
We know from their words and deeds and material success that the Clintons are agents for Wall Street, the Big Banks, the military/security complex, Israel, agribusiness, and the extractive industries. Their large personal fortune, approximately $120 million, and the $1,600 million in their foundation, much of which came from abroad in exchange for political favors, attests to the unchallengable fact that the Clintons are agents for the oligarchy that rules America, indeed, that rules the American Empire from Australia and Japan, through North America and Western and Eastern Europe to the Russian border.
We know that Hillary, like Bill, is a liar.
We know that Hillary is a warmonger.
We know that Hillary made the most irresponsible statement ever uttered by a presidential candidate when she declared the President of Russia to be the “new Hitler,” thereby raising tensions between the US and Russia to a higher level than existed during the Cold War.
We know that Hillary is allied with the neoconservatives and that her belief in the neocons’ ideology of US world hegemony is likely to result in war with Russia and China.
All we know about Trump is that the oligarchs, who sent America’s jobs overseas, who flooded the country with difficult-to-assimilate immigrants, who destroyed public education, who bailed out Wall Street and the “banks too big to fail,” who sacrificed American homeowners and retirees living on a fixed income, who intend to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, who have given the public killer cops, relentless violations of privacy, the largest prison poplulation in the world, and destroyed the US Constitution in order to increase executive power over the American people, are violently opposed to Trump. This opposition should tell us that Trump is the person we want in the Oval Office.
Some claim that it is all a charade and that Trump is playing a role in order to elect Hillary. American politics are so corrupt that anything is possible. However the ruling elites and their puppets seem to be genuinely concerned about Trump’s challenge to their control, and they have united against Trump. They have used their money to buy up “progressive” websites paid to bring the print and TV anti-Trump propaganda onto the Internet, thus joining the Internet presstitutes with the print, TV, and NPR whores who are working overtime to demonize Trump and to elect Hillary.
The entire power structure of our country is behind Hillary. Both political parties, Democratic and Republican, and both ideologies, neoliberals and neoconservatives, are united behind Hillary.
How much more evidence do Americans need in order to know that a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?
Apparently, Americans remain captives of their insouciance. According to news reports, a majority of voters still haven’t a clue about the consequences of voting for Hillary. Polls report that Hillary is well in the lead. Are these real polls or just another presstitute lie to discourage Trump supporters? Why vote when they have already lost?
The propaganda assault against Trump, vicious as it was, did not succeed during the Republican primary. Despite the media condemnation of Trump, he swept the other Republican candidates aside effortlessly.
The current media demonization of Trump might fail as well. Indeed, it is so transparent that it could elect him.
All that is required is for enough Americans to awake from their insousiance to recognize that it is the enemies of their own lives, their own living standards, and their own liberty who are violently opposed to Trump.
If Americans cannot reach this realization, they have no future, and neither does the planet Earth.
The ruling oligarchy hates Trump because he disavows war with Russia, questions the purpose of NATO, opposes the offshoring of Americans’ jobs, and opposes the uncontrolled immigration that is transforming the United States into a multi-cultural entity devoid of unity. The oligarchs are replacing the United States with a Tower of Babel. Oligarchic power grows exponentially among the confusion of diversity.
In other words, Trump is for America and for Americans.
This is why the oligarchs and their whores hate Trump.
The imbecillic Americans who vote for Hillary are voting for war and their own immiseration.
Possibly, a vote for Trump is the same. However, in the case of Trump we do not know that. In the case of Hillary we most certainly do know it.
Of course, it could matter not how Americans vote. Those who program the electronic voting machines will determine the vote, and as the establishments of both political parties totally oppose Trump, the programmed machines can elect Hillary. We know this from our electoral history. The US has already experienced elections in which exit polls show a winning candidate different from the candidate selected by the electronic machines that have no paper trail and no way of affirming the vote.
If Hillary gets into the Oval Office, I predict nuclear war before her first term is over. A vote for Hillary is a vote for nuclear war.
If you look at the forthcoming election realistically, you have no alternative but to conclude that the entirety of the presstitute media and American Establishment prefers the risk of nuclear war to the risk of losing control of the government to the voters.
That Americans permitted the rise of unaccountable power tells us all we need to know about the dereliction of duty of which United States citizens are guilty. The American people failed democracy, which requires accountable government. The American government has proven that it is not accountable to the US Constitution, to US statutory law, to international law, or to voters.
If the result of Americans’ dereliction of duty is nuclear war, the American people will be responsible for the death of planet Earth. One would hope that with responsibility this great on their shoulders, the American people will reject the unequivocal war candidate and take their chances on holding Trump accountable to his words.
Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.
The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this). According to French intelligence officers, the U.S. wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Central Asian oil more easily and cheaply. And so the U.S. told the Taliban shortly before 9/11 that they would either get “a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs”, the former if they greenlighted the pipeline, the second if they didn’t. See this, this and this.
The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.
For example, the pipeline which the U.S. wanted to run through Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was to transport gas as much as oil.
The proposed $7.6 billion, 1,040 mile-long TAPI [Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India … admittedly a mouthful, but you’ll be hearing a lot about it in the coming months] natural gas pipeline has a long regional history, having first been proposed even before the Taliban captured Kabul, as in 1995 Turkmenistan and Pakistan initialed a memorandum of understanding. TAPI, with a carrying capacity of 33 billion cubic meters of Turkmen natural gas a year, was projected to run from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad gas field across Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate at the northwestern Indian town of Fazilka.
TAPI would have required the assent of the Taliban, and two years after the MoU was signed the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Ltd. consortium, led by U.S. company Unocal, flew a Taliban delegation to Unocal headquarters in Houston, where the Taliban signed off on the project.
The Taliban visit to the U.S. has been confirmed by the mainstream media. Indeed, here is a picture of the Taliban delegation visiting Unocal’s Houston headquarters in 2007:
U.S. companies such as Unocal (lead on the proposed pipeline) and Enron (and see this), with full U.S. government support, continued to woo the Taliban right up until 2001 in an attempt to sweet-talk them into green-lighting the pipeline.
For example, two French authors with extensive experience in intelligence analysis (one of them a former French secret service agent) – claim:
Until August [2001], the US government saw the Taliban regime “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia” from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, “the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that.”
Under newly elected president George W Bush… Unocal snuck back into the game and, as early as January 2001, was cozying up to the Taliban yet again, this time supported by a star-studded governmental cast of characters, including undersecretary of state Richard Armitage, himself a former Unocal lobbyist.
***
Negotiations eventually broke down because of those pesky transit fees the Taliban demanded. Beware the Empire’s fury. At a Group of Eight summit meeting in Genoa in July 2001, Western diplomats indicated that the Bush administration had decided to take the Taliban down before year’s end. (Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad would later confirm this to me.) The attacks of September 11, 2001 just slightly accelerated the schedule.
Soon after the start of the Afghan war, Karzai became president (while Le Monde reported that Karzai was a Unocal consultant, it is possible that it was a mix-up with the Unocal consultant and neocon who got Karzai elected, Zalmay Khalilzad). In any event, a mere year later, a U.S.-friendly Afghani regime signed onto TAPI.
Virtually all of the current global geopolitical tension is based upon whose vision of the “New Silk Road” will control.
But before we can understand the competing visions, we have to actually see the maps:
And here are the competing pipelines backed by the U.S. and by Iran, before India sided with the U.S.:
With maps in hand, we can now discuss the great geopolitical battle raging between the U.S. and its allies, on the one hand, and Russia, China and Iran, on the other hand.
Russia and the USA have been in a state of competition in this region, ever since the former Soviet Union split up, and Russia is adamant on keeping the Americans out of its Central Asian backyard. Russia aims to increase European gas dominance on its resources whereas the US wants the European Union (EU) to diversify its energy supply, primarily away from Russian dominance. There are already around three major Russian pipelines that are supplying energy to Europe and Russia has planned two new pipelines.
The third “big player” in this New Great Game is China, soon to be the world’s biggest energy consumer, which is already importing gas from Turkmenistan via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to its Xinjiang province — known as the Central Asia-China Pipeline — which may tilt the balance towards Asia. Pepe Escobar calls it the opening of the 21st century Silk Road in 2009 when this pipeline became operational. China’s need for energy is projected to increase by 150 per cent which explains why it has signed probably the largest number of deals not just with the Central Asian republics but also with the heavily sanctioned Iran and even Afghanistan. China has planned around five west-east gas pipelines, within China, of which one is operational (domestically from Xinjiang to Shanghai) and others are under construction and will be connected to Central Asian gas reserves.
Another important country is Iran. Iran sits on the second largest gas reserves in the world and has over 93 billion barrels of proven oil reserves with a total of 4.17 million barrels per day in 2009. To the dislike of the United States, Iran is a very active player. The Turkmenistan-Iran gas pipeline, constructed in 1997, was the first new pipeline going out from Central Asia.Furthermore, Iran signed a $120 billion gas exploration deal, often termed the “deal of the century” with China. This gas deal signed in 2004 entails the annual export of approximately 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China for 25 years. It also gives China’s state oil company the right to participate in such projects as exploration and drilling for petrochemical and gas industries in Iran. Iran also plans to sell its gas to Europe through its Persian Gas pipeline which can become a rival to the US Nabucco pipeline. More importantly, it is also the key party in the proposed Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline, also formerly known as the “peace pipeline.” Under this pipeline plan, first proposed in 1995, Iran will sell gas from its mega South Pars fields to Pakistan and India.
Referring to China, Escobar states “most important of all, ‘isolated’ Iran happens to be a supreme matter of national security for China, which has already rejected the latest Washington sanctions without a blink” and that “China may be the true winner from Washington’s new sanctions, because it is likely to get its oil and gas at a lower price, as the Iranians grow ever more dependent on the China market.”
China has also shown interest in the construction of IP on the Pakistani side and further expanding it to China. This means that starting at Gwadar, Beijing plans to build another pipeline, crossing Balochistan and then following the Karakoram Highway northwards all the way to Xinjiang, China’s Far West. China is also most likely to get the construction contract for this pipeline. As stated above, Chinese firms are part of the consortium awarded the contract for the financial consultancy for the project. Closer participation in the Asian energy projects would also help China increase its influence in the region for its objective of creating the “string of pearls” across the region — which has often scared India as an encirclement strategy by the Chinese government.
Why Syria?
You might ask why there is so much focus on Syria right now.
Well, Syria is an integral part of the proposed 1,200km Arab Gas Pipeline:
So yes, regime change was planned against Syria (as well as Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran) 20 years ago.
And yes, attacking Syria weakens its close allies Iran and Russia … and indirectly China.
But Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is also a key to why it is now being targeted.
Just as the Taliban was scheduled for removal after they demanded too much in return for the Unocal pipeline, Syria’s Assad is being targeted because he is not a reliable “player”.
Specifically, Turkey, Israel and their ally the U.S. want an assured flow of gas through Syria, and don’t want a Syrian regime which is not unquestionably loyal to those 3 countries to stand in the way of the pipeline … or which demands too big a cut of the profits.
Pepe Escobar sums up what is driving current global geopolitics and war:
What you’re really talking about is what’s happening on the immense energy battlefield that extends from Iran to the Pacific Ocean. It’s there that the liquid war for the control of Eurasia takes place.
Yep, it all comes down to black gold and “blue gold” (natural gas), hydrocarbon wealth beyond compare, and so it’s time to trek back to that ever-flowing wonderland – Pipelineistan.
One day ahead of the twentieth anniversary of the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the United Nations Security Council adopted a Resolution on reinforcing the de facto global ban on nuclear weapons testing established 20 years ago.
The 15-member body – comprising the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France as permanent (P5) members with the right to veto and 10 non-permanent members elected by rotation for a period of two years – adopted the Resolution after extensive discussions on September 23 by a vote of 14 in favour and none against but one abstention by Egypt on the ground that the text of the Resolution did not stress on the need for nuclear disarmament.
The Security Council emphasises “the vital importance and urgency of achieving the early entry into force of the Treaty” and “calls upon all States to refrain from conducting any nuclear-weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion and to maintain their moratoria in this regard”.
Such moratoria, it adds, “do not have the same permanent and legally binding effect as entry into force of the Treaty”.
The Resolution refers to a Joint Statement on the Treaty by the P5 on September 15, 2016, in which those States noted that, “a nuclear-weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion would defeat the object and purpose of the CTBT”.
While welcoming the action taken by the Security Council in support of the Treaty and commending the U.S. for its initiative and the members of the Council, particularly its permanent members, for their support, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the Resolution is “not a substitute for the entry-into-force of the CTBT” – a view echoed by Dr. Lassina Zerbo, Executive Secretary of the Vienna-based Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).
Addressing the 8th Friends’ Ministerial Meeting on September 21 in New York, Dr Zerbo said: “We have enjoyed twenty years with an almost complete cessation of nuclear testing, supported by a robust, shared, international system for detection and monitoring. What we do not yet have is a Treaty that is legally in force. And let me be clear – while the CTBT can be described as a Treaty in operation, there is ultimately no satisfactory alternative to its entry into force.”
In a web-posted message, the CTBTO Executive Secretary said: “The 20th anniversary year has thus far seen a number of important conferences and events dedicated to the CTBT, and two new ratifications: Swaziland and Myanmar, bringing the total number to 166. With two nuclear tests by the DPRK (in January and September), the year has also reminded the international community of the urgency of advancing the Treaty’s entry into force.”
In August, events were held in Astana, Kazakhstan, New York and Vienna to mark the International Day Against Nuclear Tests and the 25th anniversary of the closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site.
The “Art for a Nuclear Test Ban” initiative was featured at several exhibits throughout the year, including during the launch of a dedicated United Nations Postal Administration Stamp on September 21 in New York.
Ban said the action by the Security Council “is especially timely as the international norm against nuclear tests has been repeatedly challenged in recent years by one country.”
The reference was to North Korea (officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – DPRK), which has conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016 in defiance of the Security Council resolutions.
The fifth and potentially most powerful nuclear test was undertaken on September 9, in which DPRK claimed to have successfully detonated a nuclear warhead that could be mounted on ballistic rockets.
Ban renewed his call for the two nuclear-weapon States – China and the U.S. – that have not yet ratified the CTBT “to translate their commitment to the moratorium into urgent action as well as for the six other remaining States listed in Annex 2 of the Treaty to join the CTBT without any further delay”.
Indeed eight States are holding up CTBT’s entry-into-force. China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the US have signed but not ratified. India, North Korea and Pakistan have yet to even sign. In order to achieve the universality of the Treaty, every single ratification counts, Ban said.
Behind the U.S. initiative
The Secretary-General’s appeal to the two nuclear powers to ratify the Treaty is underlined by the fact that when first presenting the idea of a Security Council resolution on the CTBT, the U.S. explained that the aim would be to reinforce global support for the treaty and its verification system and “stigmatise those countries that continue to test and act in ways contrary to a de facto norm of international behavior”, while emphasising that the resolution would not create any new legal obligations.
The U.S. initiative is widely seen as motivated by domestic U.S. politics and a desire to strengthen President Barack Obama’s nuclear non-proliferation legacy. While the U.S. was among the first signatories of the treaty, the Congress in 1999 voted against ratification and despite sustained efforts, the Obama administration has been unsuccessful in its attempts at re-engaging Congress.
According to observers, the initial reaction to the idea of a CTBT Resolution among Security Council members was “less than enthusiastic, and negotiations were difficult”. A draft was first agreed among the P5, with the joint statement forming an integral part of the discussions, and was then shared with the elected members.
Nuclear disarmament
As negotiations moved to the full Council, there were significant reservations on the part of members who have traditionally held strong views on nuclear disarmament and have been critical of the nuclear weapon states for not fulfilling their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), most notably from Egypt and New Zealand, who are in the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) in the General Assembly’s First Committee.
NAC, which also comprises Brazil, Ireland, Mexico and South Africa, sponsors an annual resolution in the First Committee titled ‘Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments‘, which is normally adopted with several abstentions, including China, and with the other P5 voting against.
The current Council composition also includes several members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has been consistently critical of the P5’s lack of compliance with their nuclear disarmament obligations, namely Angola, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela, in addition to Egypt.
Against this backdrop, statements by the U.S. and Egypt before the adoption of the Resolution and others after the Resolution was voted make an interesting reading.
Statements before and after
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said before action on draft resolution that Member States had a chance to reaffirm the CTBT’s promise of a more secure and peaceful planet. In October, the international community would mark the thirtieth anniversary of a meeting between former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Iceland, where they had declared plans to move in a new direction on nuclear issues.
Most recently, he continued, the United States and Iran had spent two long years negotiating what many had seen as improbable: the decision of a nation to give up its nuclear programme and make it clear it was willing to take steps to make the world safer.
Responsible Governments everywhere were committed to addressing the dangers posed by nuclear materials and weapons. An affirmative vote on the resolution before the Council today would be a sign of the body’s unwavering commitment to a safer world in which nuclear energy was used solely for peaceful purposes.
With today’s technology, “we don’t need to blow up weapons to see what we can do”, he said, adding that the Council’s action today could reaffirm to people everywhere that a world without nuclear weapons was possible and that States were doing everything possible to make that future a reality.
Egypt’s Deputy Foreign Minister for International Institutions and Organizations Hisham Badr outlined six concerns over the resolution, emphasizing that the Council was not the appropriate forum to address the Test-Ban Treaty in the way the resolution had attempted.
The text failed to highlight the importance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the mention of which was absent in its operative paragraphs. “Why is there eagerness to achieve the universality of the CTBT, but complete silence when it comes to the NPT?” he asked, calling on all Non-Proliferation Treaty member States to promote that instrument’s universality.
The text, he said, also failed to address the urgency and criticality of steps towards nuclear disarmament and turned a blind eye to the outcome documents from the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conferences of 1995, 2000 and 2010.
Further, he said, the absence of nuclear disarmament from the text severely undermined its credibility and sent the wrong message to the international community – that the Council had engaged in a “cherry picking” approach to disarmament.
In that vein, he said the text unreasonably placed nuclear-weapon States on equal footing with non-nuclear-weapon States. Calling the resolution’s intrusive nature in the work of the Preparatory Commission and the Provisional Technical Secretariat counterproductive, he said the text reflected a puzzling dilemma.
While some States had expressed enthusiasm in the Council for the urgency of the completion of the verification regime, they did not shoulder their responsibility to ratify the Test-Ban Treaty, with their respective legislative branches repeatedly refusing to do so. Despite those reservations, Egypt had decided to abstain from the vote, he said.
After the vote of 14 in favour and none against but one abstention, Senegal’s Foreign Minister Mankeur Ndiayesaid the final goal was not only non-proliferation, but also nuclear disarmament. Moving towards that objective, it was important to strengthen non-proliferation among nuclear-weapon States, who must provide negative security assurances.
Malaysia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ramlan Bin Ibrahim noted with serious concern that the Test-Ban-Treaty had yet to take effect and encouraged its early entry into force. As the Treaty did not contain any provisions, which committed States with nuclear weapons and those with nuclear weapon capabilities to total nuclear disarmament, the deed preserved in the Treaty could not be disregarded.
The resolution did not sufficiently recognize that fact. Furthermore, it was crucial that States with nuclear capabilities undertook their responsibility to ratify the Treaty, he said urging Annex 2 countries to do so as soon as possible.
The challenge ahead, was “ensuring that there should not be precedent on making reference to documents in Council resolutions that can only be agreed to by a handful of States”, he added. The text’s authority and credibility would be negated if the concerns of all Council members were not taken on board in a balanced way.
Gerard van Bohemen, New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the UN, said that the anniversary of the adoption of the Test-Ban Treaty was reason to celebrate, yet there was cause for deep disappointment that the Treaty was still not in force. Urging all States that had not yet signed and ratified the Treaty to do so as soon as possible, he said until they all did, the international community would not be able to “close the door” on nuclear testing.
New Zealand, he said, shared the reservations of other Council members about the reference in the resolution to the Joint Statement by five nuclear-weapon States who also happened to be permanent Council members, he said, adding that “we are uncomfortable with this Council being used to validate the perspectives” of any group.
“For as long as some States retain nuclear weapons – and declare them to be essential for national security – others would seek them as well,” he continued. That paradox highlighted the mutually reinforcing nature of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. “The neglect of one will set back the other,” he added.
When Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers chose to remain seated during the national anthem on August 26 prior to the start of the team’s game against the Green Bay Packers, as the rest of the stadium stood, he was not the only one engaging in a political act. But Kaepernick was likely the only one doing so consciously. And though he was outnumbered by tens of thousands in the stadium, and millions who watched on their television sets, Kaepernick’s bold statement was infinitely more powerful and outsized in its impact.
Those who – either out of pride or mere indifference – choose to stand for the national anthem were being just as political as Kaepernick. They were actively reinforcing the legitimacy of the political system that the anthem and the flag stand for.
Those who rule and benefit from the political status quo want compliance to be subconscious. If the ruling class is able to achieve blind respect for its symbols, they are able to associate the state with benevolent abstractions like “freedom” and “democracy” and hide its inherently unjust manifestations – police brutality, military adventurism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the exacerbation of inequality, warrantless surveillance, mass incarceration, evisceration of social programs, natural resource extraction fueled by unrestrained profit seeking, etc.
With the atomization of society, the corporatization of political parties and the disappearance of unions in the neoliberal era, citizens have been largely relegated to the role of spectators in the political process, whose function is to support bipartisan American hegemony. Sports, where fans come together to watch passively, have become the most important venue to propagandize for militarism and American supremacy.
Chris Hedges calls sports stadiums “massive temples across the country where we celebrate our state religion.” Before the anthem is played, military personnel are brought on the field to celebrate their participation in illegal invasions and occupations, as if it were natural to lionize crimes against peace. The NFL has received millions of dollars over the last few years to carry out “patriotic displays” at football games. Militarism is cheered with thunderous applause and standing ovations.
This setting presents the perfect opportunity to maximize the impact of dissent. After his silent refusal to stand for the anthem in late August, Kaepernick’s protest overshadowed the game itself and became the most relevant topic in the sports world.
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick said. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
Kaepernick stated explicitly that he was refusing to symbolically validate the legitimacy of a political system that he sees around him being responsible for grave injustices. What was universally accepted a day before was now called into question. Other athletes, and even spectators, cannot just stand up, put their hand over their heart, and not recognize that they are exercising their agency for a political cause.
Sure enough, other athletes started following Kaepernick’s lead. A teammate. A player on another team. A soccer player. Entire high school teams. Elementary school children. Across the country, people are taking sides.
Rather than blindly propagating the liberal fantasy where everyone is fundamentally united, people are forced to choose: acceptance of the status quo, or rejection of it.
The side that succeeds will not do so by a majority vote. Dissidents like Kaepernick who seek political change don’t need half the stadium to sit down or kneel with them. All they need to do is demonstrate that people have the power to resist what is done in their name.
The more people realize this, the more they will start questioning on their own. They will no longer lend symbolic reinforcement to a political system that represents actions they oppose. Though they may be removed from decision making institutions like Congress, they will find they can participate in politics through one small, symbolic act that will make their voice suddenly matter.
Kaepernick is far from the first athlete to use his celebrity to confront the political system, of course. Most famously, Muhammad Ali defiantly refused to fight for the U.S. military in the Vietnam War and was convicted of draft dodging and sent to prison.
“I ain’t going no 10,000 miles to help murder and kill other poor people. If I want to die, I’ll die right here, right now, fightin’ you, if I want to die,” Ali said. “You my enemy, not no Chinese, no Vietcong, no Japanese.”
Ali’s principled stand played a major role in encouraging resistance and fomenting what grew into a massive anti-war movement that shocked the elite political class and eventually forced the withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam.
50 years later, with state violence still wildly out of control in the United States, Kaepernick could similarly inspire the public to resist illegal and immoral atrocities sanctioned by the state. By taking a knee, dissenters become the center of attention. The symbolic rituals they refuse to take part in are exposed as vacuous propaganda exercises which serve to stifle critical thinking and induce passive acceptance of the status quo.
Judging by the vilification Kaepernick has received so far, the apologists for – and deniers of – injustice understand how serious a challenge Kaepernick presents if his example keeps spreading at its present rate.
Comments Off on Sports Events, “Militarized Patriotism” and the National Anthem: Colin Kaepernick of the San Fransisco 49ers Forces “Americans to Choose Sides”
US and allied diplomats went on the offensive against Russia at a UN Security Council meeting Sunday, provocatively accusing Moscow of “war crimes” in Syria and demonstrating their readiness to risk a direct military confrontation with the nuclear-armed power.
The emergency Security Council meeting was called by permanent members the United States, Britain and France with the explicit aim of making unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes against Russia.
Referring to the attack on a UN aid convoy last Monday, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told the meeting, “What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counterterrorism, it is barbarism.”
She went on to charge that the Syrian government, which began an offensive on Thursday to take rebel-held parts of Aleppo, was indiscriminately bombing residential areas with Russian support. “Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and Assad make war. Instead of helping get lifesaving aid to civilians, Russia and Assad are bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals, and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive,” claimed Power.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson went even further, telling an interview on the BBC Sunday that Russia should be investigated for war crimes.
The handwringing of US and British politicians over alleged human rights abuses is thoroughly hypocritical. In truth, the collapse of the weeklong ceasefire early last week was triggered by the deliberate bombing of Syrian army positions by US aircraft—positions that were well known to coalition forces. The attack enabled Islamic State fighters to assume control of the area. In addition, US-backed “rebels” dominated by the hardline al-Nusra Front, the former Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, systematically violated the terms of the ceasefire. The subsequent attack on the aid convoy could have been perpetrated by these forces, who have been accused of blocking civilians from fleeing.
Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that reaching a peace deal in Syria was “almost impossible” due to Washington’s continued support for al-Nusra. “They are armed with tanks, APCs, field artillery, multiple rocket launchers… dozens and dozens of units, including heavy weaponry… Of course, they couldn’t have made this equipment themselves. All of this has been received by them and is still being shipped to them by generous Western backers, with the US, presumably, turning a blind eye,” Churkin commented at the Security Council meeting. He went on to accuse al-Nusra of blocking humanitarian aid to Aleppo and launching indiscriminate attacks on government-held areas.
Clashes intensified throughout the country Sunday. Between 26 and 43 civilians were reported killed in bombing raids on eastern Aleppo, which is controlled by anti-Assad forces dominated by al-Nusra. Meanwhile, rebels shelled government-controlled Masyaf for a second day running.
It is becoming increasingly evident that Washington and its allies never saw the ceasefire as a means of bringing an end to the five-year conflict. Instead, they agreed to the deal in order to buy time to resupply their proxy forces, which were coming under mounting pressure from Assad’s troops, backed by Iranian and Hezbollah fighters, and to prepare a massive intensification of the war for regime-change in Damascus.
This was made clear Sunday, when a statement was released rejecting any talks to end to the war. The statement was signed by a large collection of rebel groups, many of which are backed by the US. It declared, “Negotiations under the present conditions are no longer useful and are meaningless.”
In a public demonstration that they would accept nothing short of full capitulation by the Assad government to their plans for regime-change, Power and the French and British UN ambassadors left the Security Council chamber as the Syrian ambassador spoke.
The transparent aim of the aggressive denunciation of Russia is to provide a fraudulent pretext for war. From the claim that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was preparing to massacre civilians in Benghazi in March 2011, to the lying allegations that Syrian government forces launched a poison gas attack in August 2013, and now the unsubstantiated allegations about Russian “war crimes” against the civilian population, Washington and its allies have repeatedly utilized such “human rights” propaganda to legitimize a vast escalation of military violence throughout the Middle East.
The corporate-controlled media has gone into overdrive in its efforts to demonize Russia and cast the US as a morally outraged bystander. Articles and television news reports routinely cite the aid convoy attack, which they attribute to Russia and the Syrian government without any hard evidence, as the cause of the ceasefire breakdown.
The New York Times published yet another propaganda piece Saturday entitled “From Paradise to Hell: How an Aid Convoy in Syria was Blown Apart.” The authors, Anne Barnard and Somini Sengupta, all but categorically asserted that Russia was to blame. Based on conversations with anonymous sources, including some aligned with pro-US and anti-Assad rebels, the Timesproclaimed, “Together, the interviews and other material indicate that there was a sustained, coordinated attack carried out by Russian or Syrian aircraft, probably both.”
Reports then appeared Sunday alleging that cluster munitions, white phosphorus, chemical weapons and barrel bombs were being deployed against Aleppo neighborhoods.
The US-incited war for regime-change in Syria has already claimed the lives of close to half a million people, forced more than half of the country’s population to leave their homes, and further destabilized the entire region.
The demonization of Russia is preparing the ground for a war that would quickly draw the major powers into a regional and global conflict. This was underscored by the remarks of General Joseph Dunford to Congress last week. Asked by Republican Senator Roger Wicker if the military could take decisive action to impose a no-fly zone, Dunford responded, “For now, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia. That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”
The military top brass in the Pentagon never supported the ceasefire deal and had no intention of abiding by it. As Dunford frankly admitted to the senators, “Russia is the most significant threat to our national interests.”
Despite the open acknowledgement that a no-fly zone would mean war, the incendiary policy is finding growing support, including from Secretary of State John Kerry. In August, the US backed a Turkish incursion into northern Syria to oust Kurdish rebels from the border region. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has vowed to establish a so-called safe zone across a large area of the north of Syria. This would entail the permanent presence of troops from a NATO member state within Syria, creating yet another flashpoint with Russia.
Washington’s reckless drive to war in the Middle East is being met with growing intransigence from its opponents in Damascus and Moscow. Speaking at the UN General Assembly debate last week, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem labeled the US bombing of the Syrian army outpost, which killed over 60 soldiers and injured over 100 more, a deliberate act. Damascus “puts all the responsibility for aggression on the US,” he continued, before adding, “This vile aggression proves that the US and its allies are accomplices of Islamic State and other terror groups.”
Muallem also denounced Turkey’s incursion in strident tones, declaring that the US-backed operation was a flagrant breach of Syrian sovereignty.
In a lengthy interview on Russian television Saturday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that the Kremlin was increasingly unwilling to compromise in the face of Washington’s provocative actions. Lavrov charged that no progress had been made in separating the al-Nusra Front and other Jihadi forces from the so-called “moderate” opposition. Unless Washington took steps to do this, “our suspicions that this all is being done to take the heat off al-Nusra Front will strengthen,” he declared.
Reiterating even more explicitly comments he made on Thursday, the foreign minister continued,
“If everything again boils down to asking Russia’s and Syria’s Air Forces to take unilateral steps—such as, ‘Give us another three- or four-day pause and after that we will persuade all opposition groups that this is serious and that they must cut ties with al-Nusra Front’—such talk will not be taken seriously by us anymore.”
The war in Syria has reached a new level of intensity recently with a roller coaster series of events these past weeks. The SAA and their allies won a brilliant victory in Aleppo recapturing important areas that had been lost in the terrorist counter-offense at Ramouseh (See my August 2016 article Syria Libya Crimea Turkey) This meant trapping what was left of the massive terrorist force that had carried out this offensive and suffered huge losses in the process. Suddenly and unsurprisingly the American’s decided to suggest a ceasefire which the Russians foolishly accepted and which would have sacrificed many of the gains the Syrians have won on the battlefield during the epic battle of Aleppo.
In exchange all they would have received were empty promises to separate the non-existent “moderate” rebels from Al Nusra. Making deals with the lame duck Obama administration is of course completely pointless at this late stage. Hillary the Queen of Chaos will soon begin her reign and the imperialist rampage she has planned will not be restrained by any empty promises Obama and Kerry make to Russia in order to save their terrorist proxies.
This was made abundantly clear days later when someone at the pentagon (or the CIA) decided to sabotage the whole rotten deal by treacherously bombing the heroic SAA troops defending Deir Ezzor and it’s 300,000 civilians from the ISIS forces that surround them. Deir Ezzor is a symbol both of the heroism of Syria fighting on despite being surrounded by enemies as well as a guarantee that Syria will not be balkanized. Plans to turn eastern Syria into an independent terrorist state will never be successful so long as Deir Ezzor remains in government hands. This is no doubt why someone decided to bomb Deir Ezzor’s defenders just as ISIS was about to launch a major offensive. This is the second time the US has done exactly the same thing last December they also bombed Deir Ezzor just as ISIS was about to attack. Thus the american claim that this was an accident is laughable especially since this time they returned to the scenes of their treacherous crime and bombed the SAA again as they were trying to evacuate the wounded. They killed 62-80 SAA troops including a general and injured hundreds more. The brief and treacherous Ceasefire ended and now the Battle for Aleppo is being fought with renewed intensity and the SAA hope to finally be able to end the terrorist siege of the city that has starved and terrorized the cities residents for years.
The Battle for Aleppo has been dubbed the “Mother of All Battles.” Ironically the current chapter began months back when it was decided to take back the territory lost thanks to the ceasefire agreed upon last spring. The Axis of Chaos (US-NATO-Israel-GCC) took the opportunity of that “Ceasefire” to massively rearm their terrorist proxies and to flood them with anti-tank missile launchers and other new weapons. This enabled the NATO death squads to launch a major offensive in Aleppo seizing vital supply route and reversing the gains made by the SAA earlier in the year. That earlier ceasefire should have ended right then but the Russians refused to face reality holding out hope that the US would ever honor their promise to separate their smaller terrorist groups from (I refuse to call them “moderates” since there is zero difference between them and ISIS and Al Nusra) Al Nusra aka Al Qaeda in Syria. Anyways that is the charitable explanation for Russia’s behavior since in reality they know full well that the “moderates” are terrorists and the US is only interested in destroying Syria not in a peaceful settlement. Eventually they were forced to abandon this charade when it became obvious the US was only using diplomacy to buy time for their terrorist proxies to regroup.
The Battle for Aleppo began again and after months of stalemate the SAA began to make real progress seizing the Castello Armas highway cutting off the terrorists supply route into eastern Aleppo. The terrorists responded with a massive counter attack on the South Western part of the city breaking thru the SAA defenses and seizing their bases. For a moment the terrorists and their supporters rejoiced but it soon became clear that this momentary victory would do nothing to relieve the siege on the area they controlled in eastern Aleppo and that they had fallen into a trap of their own making. After weeks of hard fighting the SAA and it’s allies were able to trap the terrorists in south western Aleppo. In the process the terrorists had laid themselves open to massive airstrikes and artillery fire loosing thousands of men. It was a glorious victory and the position of the terrorists seemed hopeless. They were cut off from their supplies and surrounded.
It was at this moment the US suddenly agreed to a ceasefire which would have forced the SAA to release their stranglehold on the Castello Armas highway, halt their bombing allow supplies into the terrorist controlled areas, even giving americans joint control of the Russian air strikes and other treacherous points of advantage to their death squad proxies. It was irresponsible folly on the Russians part to agree to this deal after months of battle by the SAA, Hezbollah, and their Iraqi, Palestinian, Iranian and afghani allies. It was highly reminiscent of the Minsk agreement which saved fascist Ukraine from complete defeat back in 2014. In exchange all they got was the same empty promises about detaching the smaller terrorist groups from Al Nusra. Meanwhile in a few months whatever they agreed would have been tossed aside anyways once a new president took office. Frankly Russian diplomacy with it’s backroom deals with Israel, Turkey, and the US makes me and other friends of Syria extremely nervous. The heroic people of Syria deserve better then to be used as a bargaining chip in such schemes.
Thankfully the folly of the Russians was exceeded by the madness of the Pentagon. Although I’d say the CIA are the ones to blame since they run ISIS while the pentagon runs the kurds where they have been engaged in a proxy war with each other in northern Syria a new refinement in madness from the Empire of Chaos. Thus this incident should be seen in the context of the the decades long CIA sabotage of presidents efforts at detente with Russia from the downing of the U2, to the assassination of JFK, Watergate, even doubtless the deep “October surprise” which put Reagan in office. Cold War 2.0 is just getting started and the Russians were fools to think that anyone in the Obama Administration could stop it now even if they wanted. This of course is doubtful since it was they who started it in the first place with first the war on Syria and then the coup in Maidan that installed a fascist Junta in Ukraine. It’s the natural byproduct of American natural security doctrine to prevent any rivals to the Empire of Chaos and as a result Russia and China will always be the main targets. Even with the American puppet Yeltsin in power the US still expanded NATO and destroyed Yugoslavia despite the tearful protests of their drunken pawn. Thus it is tragic to see Russia betraying it’s allies in the hopes of winning the friendship of it’s enemies.
The brave defenders of Deie Ezzor have repelled endless waves of ISIS attacks for years in an area that ISIS completely controls. Deir Ezzor is a symbol of defiance and heroism to the people of Syria, and to people all over the world who are able to see thru the western propaganda narrative of the war. Deir Ezzor is a symbol that one day all of Syria will be liberated from the terrorists. Thus we will never forget the criminal attack the US launched while the ISIS terrorists stood around laughing. If the Russians had not intervened to bomb the ISIS attackers who launched their attack in coordination with the US the town could have been in deadly danger of being over run. On the other hand the attack also destroyed the disastrous new ceasefire agreement so in a perverse way we should be grateful that months of sacrifice by the SAA and it’s allies in the battle of Aleppo will not be squandered by scheming diplomats.
With the end of the ceasefire the battle for Aleppo has been renewed with even greater intensity. An aid convoy was destroyed probably by the terrorists themselves to vilify the Syrian government possibly by the Syrians themselves to sabotage any attempts to renew the treacherous ceasefire. The whole thing appears to be yet another example of black propaganda by the US but it’s not clear what exactly happened.
In Aleppo the terrorists are surrounded and the SAA is launching a three pronged offensive to finally clear the city which has been looted, starved and terrorized for years. Unfortunately the Battle for Aleppo is still far from over and I just learned that the terrorists have destroyed vital pumping stations cutting off 1.5 Million people from water. Hopefully some way will be found to bring them back online. It is the latest of many hardships suffered by the brave people of Aleppo who have lost electricity, faced hunger, a shortage of medical supplies and suffered constant mortar artillery and sniper attacks. Such criminal tactics will not save them in the end. The decisive victory in the battle of Aleppo by the SAA has already shifted the balance of the battle in Syria’s favor. The SAA and it’s allies are already making new advances recently gaining control of the now deserted refugee camp at Handaraat and a hospital. Obviously wars are extremely unpredictable especially Syria but hopefully the SAA will now be able to capitalize on their earlier victories in the the Battle for Aleppo and crush the terrorists occupying the city once and for all.
In an extraordinary display of betrayal of principles and adherence to the US and NATO state objectives in Syria, Canada’s NDP (New Democratic Party) put its weight behind the nomination of the NATO funded, terrorist-linked, White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize. In a letter to Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephane Dion, NDP MP Nathan Cullen wrote:
“Canada has a proud and long-standing commitment to human rights, humanitarianism and international peacekeeping. It is surely our place to recognize the selflessness, bravery, and fundamental commitment to human dignity of these brave women and men,”
The backlash against this move by the New Democratic Party has caused a few tidal waves. The following is an open letter written by John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar at the University of Winnipeg.
Dear Mr. Cullen,
Since it was you who made the public presentation regarding the NDP’s position on this matter, I am writing directly to you but please forward this letter to all NDP MPs since they have unanimously endorsed this highly questionable proposition.
I am writing to alert you that the NDP has made a very serious mistake in recommending to the federal government that Canada should nominate the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize. To some extent your error may be understandable in light of the fact that a commentator has recently said, “Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”
Nevertheless, instead of simply relying on the mainstream media for information on this issue, you should have assigned someone to do in depth research on what the White Helmets entity really is. This is a complicated matter, and my research on this has resulted in a rather lengthy letter, but it’s critically important for you to know what is involved.
My research shows that the White Helmets do not operate in all of Syria but solely in Al Qaeda and other terrorist occupied parts of Syria. The question arises that if the White Helmets are supposedly not affiliated with any political party and that they are devoted to saving the lives of Syrian people wherever they are, how is it that they are found only in Al Qaeda and Al Nusra occupied parts of Syria, especially in the terrorist-occupied sections of Aleppo?
When these terrorist groups shell and bomb Syrian government controlled areas, how is it that there are no While Helmets to help the people in these areas? After all, it is the terrorists who are responsible for the bulk of the casualties.
For years the Syrian army has been trying to defeat and oust the Al Qaeda and Al Nusra forces from areas they had conquered since 2011. By being in these zones the White Helmets probably do save lives in the course of these battles. However, a case can be made that they are there primarily to be of propagandistic assistance to the terrorist groups that are trying to overthrow the legally elected secular Syrian government and replace it with a tyrannical Wahhabi religious regime. As such, this is a group that is hardly worthy of being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
The reasons for the devastating war in Syria are well presented in an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – a personage who could hardly be accused of being an Assad apologist. The following are several excerpts:
“While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Arabs see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000, when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500 kilometer pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. . . . Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link.
In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria. It is important to note that this was well before the Arab Spring-engendered uprising against Assad. . . . Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline. . . . And only when we see this conflict as a proxy war over a pipeline do events become comprehensible…… Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar…… As predicted, Assad’s overreaction to the foreign-made crisis polarized Syria’s Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war.”
Obviously, it is the USA that fomented and engineered the war in Syria. Doing this had nothing to do with “human rights and freedom”… it had everything to do with oil and natural gas policies that Syria had the audacity to oppose.
The Syrian war has been raging since 2011, leading to the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people, according to UN estimates. As Kennedy pointed out in his article, the conflict began when the US-backed opposition started an armed rebellion against President Assad’s government. Although this is regularly portrayed as a “civil war,” it is nothing of the kind. The US State Department has recently admitted that “an excess of 40,000 total foreign fighters have gone to the conflict [in Syria] from over 100 countries. The war has been funded by billions of dollars, primarily by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and indirectly by the USA through its on-going CIA operations that provide military training and the latest weapons, including artillery and anti-tank guns.
A new report citing former CIA officers has revealed that the CIA was knowingly providing weapons, including tow missiles to fighters that were effectively part of al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, continuing to arm “moderates” so long as they at least nominally kept their moderate names. As the war continued, these so-called “moderates” were defecting en masse to al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda forces. But so long as they retained their “Free Syrian Army” name the CIA could feign arming “moderates” – they didn’t care so long as they were arming a group that was fighting against the Syrian government. A Green Beret associated with the CIA programs has recently stated, “No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know we are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’”
Contrary to the myth of the ‘moderate rebel’, they all operate basically as terrorists and these groups most often work together. For example, a top US-backed leader of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Abdel Jabbar al-Okaidi, is quite open about the fact that he works closely with ISIL-Daesh. The FSA has worked closely with the other main Al Qaeda group, Jabhat al Nusra, right from the very beginning.
So where do the White Helmets fit into this scenario? Our media portrays them as a group of Syrians volunteering as emergency first responders who scour through rubble in Syria after bombings to find survivors. They claim to be not affiliated with any political party and describe themselves as “neutral, impartial and humanitarian.” But if that is so, how is it that they do not operate anywhere in Syria except in areas held by Al Qaida forces, primarily in the Al Nusra occupied areas?
The media openly admits that they “respond in the aftermath of Syrian government aerial bombings.” So where would this be other than in rebel/terrorist-occupied parts of Syria that the Syrian army is trying to recapture? If that is the case, how can be they claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” when they operate only in their so-called “liberated areas”?
It is a myth, and actually a lie, that somehow all on their own Syrian civilians such as construction workers, blacksmiths, bakers, tailors, painters, students, teachers, voluntarily came together, in the thousands, to form the White Helmet brigades. They are portrayed as a “non-governmental” organization, i.e., an NGO, but it is on record that so far they have received $23 million from the US Government, $29 million (£19.7 million) from the UK Government, and $4.5 million (€4 million) from the Dutch Government.
In addition, they receive material assistance and training, funded and run by a variety of other EU nations. This totals at least $60 million, so the White Helmets are not some poor unorganized locally based charity group. And are we to believe that all this money is used to just “scour through rubble” to try to rescue civilians in shelled and bombed war zones? How could all this money be used just for this purpose? There has to be something more to this.
Given this, how can the White Helmets be called an ‘independent relief organization’ when it is being funded by the US and other countries that directly and indirectly are involved in the military over-throw of Syria’s government?
Since the USA, the UK and their allies have had a long-standing objective to overthrow the Syrian government, with the cry “Assad must go!”, all this money that has been poured into White Helmets isn’t just to save the lives of “innocent civilians” in war zones – it appears that its primary purpose has been to further undermine Syria’s government and to create propaganda that supports military intervention by the U.S. and its allies.
In line with this, the White Helmets systematically ignore the atrocities carried out by Al Nusra and other Al Qaeda groups, but instead proceed to create media-friendly images of victims of the Syrian Army’s bombing of rebel-held areas. Considering the beheadings, torture and multiple other atrocities committed by these groups, it is hardly surprising that the Syrian Army, in the course of its campaign to defeat them, regularly bombs them.
The White Helmets, originally called “Syrian Civil Defence”, is an organization that was not created in Syria and nor has it been designed for the Syrian public at large – they operate solely in rebel/terrorist occupied parts of Syria. It was created by the UK and USA in March of 2013. Civilians from rebel/terrorist controlled territory were paid to go to Turkey to receive some training in rescue operations. The program was headed by James Le Mesurier, a former British military officer and private contractor whose company is based in Dubai. The source of the $300,000 original seed funding is uncertain, but, as cited above, millions came in afterwards with open acknowledgements from the USA, UK and Holland.
In the first source cited above, a senior US State Department official has stated that their funding of this project “enables Syrian civilians to do something tangible in the face of the regime’s atrocities . . . in liberated areas of Syria.” Note that the reference is to “the regime’s atrocities . . . in liberated areas of Syria.” Hence, in line with US foreign policy, there is no mention of terrorist atrocities committed against the Syrian population and why the Syrian army is trying to recapture these so-called “liberated areas.” Moreover, what this reveals is that the USA’s sizeable funding of the White Helmets in “liberated areas” is somehow connected to its campaign that “Assad must go.”
If the White Helmets devoted their activities solely to save the lives of people caught up in war zones, that would be commendable and beyond reproach, but that is not the case. A major part of their activities are devoted to media reports and public relations, and it seems that this is what accounts for a major part of their funding – and it appears that this is the primary reason for their creation.
Central to their media campaign is the demonization of the Assad government – they paint the Syrian President and the Syrian Army as monsters slaughtering civilians, especially children; yet, when tracked back, all the stories come from utterly partisan sources. Combined with this is their appeal for a No Fly Zone and direct foreign intervention – just recall how well this turned out in Libya. Almost immediately after the White Helmets were formed they became very active on social media with presence on Twitter, Facebook, and editorials in high profile newspapers. For example, in March of 2015 a White Helmet leader wrote a Washington Post editorial, concluding with the request for “a no-fly zone, if necessary.”
This highly questionable barrage of consistently defamatory material is nothing more than outright propaganda.
The White Helmets is clearly a public relations project which has received glowing publicity from HuffPo to Nicholas Kristof at the NYT. White Helmets have been heavily promoted by the U.S. Institute of Peace (U.S.IP) whose leader began a press conference by declaring “U.S.IP has been working for the Syrian Revolution from the beginning”.
To be blunt about this, it appears that the White Helmets use search and rescue activities as a cover-up to demonize Syrian President Assad and help terrorists overthrow the Syrian government.
The claims regarding the number of people trained by the White Helmets (3,000) and the number of people rescued (60,000) are questionable. The numbers are probably highly exaggerated especially since rebel-controlled territories have few civilians. For example, almost 90% of Aleppo’s population is in government controlled area, whereas eastern Aleppo, occupied by Al Nusra, used to have a million people but now it’s reported to have only about 200,000 or even much less as estimated by others. To escape Al Nusra’s mercenary fighters, the bulk of the population has been driven into safe pockets within Aleppo away from terrorist strongholds. So how is it possible for the White Helmets to have rescued 60,000 civilians when the most populous area occupied by al Nusra has only 200,000 or less?
It is the White Helmets themselves who have claimed that they have rescued 60,000 civilians; this has not been verified by any other source. Despite such a classic conflict of interest, searching for independent evidence and disqualifying self-serving claims from belligerent parties in Syria has been ignored in much of the western media. As such, this claim by the White Helmets without any verification is next to meaningless.
There are other troubling aspects regarding the White Helmets. Although it was the US and the UK that were behind the creation of this organization (apparently primarily for propaganda purposes), it is revealing that on April 19, 2016, the US State Department had blocked entrance into the United States by Raed Saleh, the head of the White Helmets, and refused to say why, although it’s apparently because the FBI had placed him onto its no-fly list as a known terrorist. There was considerable consternation about this in the US media, but there is no denying that this happened.
A further disturbing aspect is the revelation of an Al Nusra video in which one of their members in Aleppo executes a civilian on May 5, 2015. Moments after the execution, several White Helmets appear on the scene to remove the body in a body bag. Afterwards the White Helmets had to respond to valid accusations of collusion, which they denied but it does show some type of symbiosis between the White Helmets and the “rebel” terrorist operatives. Shortly afterwards the video was deleted by YouTube. However, it was somehow saved and can be viewed on this site: An account of this has been presented by British journalist Vanessa Beeley in which she included four photos from the Al Nusra video, showing the execution and members of the White Helmets picking up the body.
In addition to this, Vanessa Beeley has provided further information on the White Helmets and includes several other informative videos. See: Who are Syria’s White Helmets
On their official website the White Helmets claim that they “have risked sniper fire to rescue SAA [Syrian Arab Army] bodies to give them a proper burial.” Contrary to this, however, one of the videos shows a senior member of the White Helmets describing the “throwing of Shabiha bodies in the trash”. Shabiha is a derogatory term used by the “rebel alliance” of Al Nusra/Al Qaeda forces for any member of the Syrian military, irrespective of whether they are Alawite, Sunni, or Shia. It is revealing how a supposed “neutral” White Helmet would use this derogatory term for dead Syrian soldiers. Another video shows several White Helmet members standing on a heap of discarded dead bodies of Syrian soldiers and giving the victory sign. And still another video shows “neutral” White Helmets once again flash the victory sign as they cart off dead Syrian Army corpses, perhaps be thrown in the trash. This display of support for the Al Nusra extremist terrorists who have just massacred these soldiers demonstrates where their true allegiances lie.
A final video shows a White Helmet referring to Al Nusra saying, “They are our role models, the best of people and we have the honour to serve them.” Surely this is a curious turn of phrase for a supposed neutral, impartial humanitarian “moderate” organization – one that is being put forward for the Nobel Peace Prize.
One could try to dismiss these comments by members of the White Helmets as not being truly indicative of the nature of this organization as such, but the fact that they have been funded by more than $60 million by the USA, other NATO countries and the Gulf states – all determined to overthrow the Syrian government – is something that cannot be dismissed. For all this money to be poured into this project shows that the White Helmets are being viewed as an important asset in the attempt to depose the secular government of the Syrian state.
The tens of thousands of Wahhabi-inspired fanatics and mercenaries from over a hundred countries who have been funded, armed, trained and directed by the USA and its allies for the purpose of destroying a secular state is not an easy sell for the general public, despite the efforts of a compliant mainstream media. Many people can see that this is a clear violation of customary international law and the UN Charter.
It was a stroke of genius, at relatively low cost, to create a seemingly innocuous NGO front group that would do “altruistic good works” but at the same time actively encourage direct foreign intervention in Syria. Hence, it appears that the primary function of the White Helmets is propaganda that encourages direct foreign intervention to depose the secular Syrian government that is actually supported by the majority of its people, as shown in the election held in June of 2014. Although the terrorists attempted to disrupt the election and it was dismissed in the USA as “fraud,” turnout was 73% of registered voters, with 88% voting for Assad. Representatives from 30 countries reported that the election was “free, fair and transparent”.
The White Helmets venture, promoted by the entire mainstream media, has been amazingly effective. The most recent effort has been the Netflix “White Helmet” documentary that premiered on September 16 at the Toronto International Film Festival. It appears to be essentially a promotion video with the “Kid rescued from rubble” as the standard shtick. After the hideous murder of British MP, Jo Cox, a special fund was established to raise money for three of her causes, one being the White Helmets. Seeing that this was done within hours of her death it seems to be a cynical and obscene exploitation of her murder to try to maintain the credibility of the White Helmets. Smart as Jo Cox was, it appears that she had been taken in by the media promotion of the White Helmets.
To show the effectiveness of the media campaign in its promotion of the White Helmets and the unjustified demonization of the Syrian government, on September 22 it was announced that the Right Livelihood Award, the so called “Alternative Nobel Prize”, is being given to the US/UK created White Helmets “for their outstanding bravery, compassion and humanitarian engagement in rescuing civilians from the destruction of the Syrian civil war.” The judges were obviously oblivious to the fact that the White Helmets only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition. They may have come to a different conclusion if they had seen this video which portrays their collaboration with Syria’s terrorists. A further comment on this matter was presented on September 23 by Rick Sterling:
“The Rights Livelihood press release says the White Helmets “remain outspoken in calling for an end to hostilities in the country.” That is false. The White Helmets actively call for US/NATO intervention through a “No Fly Zone” which would begin with attacks and destruction of anti-aircraft positions. Taking over the skies above another country is an act of war as confirmed by US General Dempsey. The White Helmets have never criticized or called for the end of funding to extremist organizations including Nusra/Al Qaeda. On the contrary, White Helmets is generally embedded with this organization which is defined as “terrorist” by even the USA. That is likely why the head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, was denied entry to the USA.”
With all the evidence I have presented showing the propaganda nature of the White Helmets phenomenon, how could the NDP have decided to ask the federal government to have Canada support the nomination of the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize? For the NDP to promote an organization that is supportive of terrorists in Syria and which is a creation of the CIA and American foreign policy for such an honour is scandalous.
How is it that in the past, both the NDP and the Canadian government, opposed the American war on Vietnam and the war on Iraq? Also we opposed US intervention in Cuba and the US-initiated coup in Chile. But more recently, both Canada and the NDP supported the US-NATO “no fly zone” in Libya (with disastrous consequences) and the US-inspired coup in Ukraine. And now the NDP, by backing the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize, is supportive of the USA’s long-standing intervention in Syria, which is not based on humanitarian issues but on pipelines and geopolitics as pointed out in the article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
If the documentation that I have presented was to be taken seriously, how would the NDP now proceed to extricate itself from this self-inflicted White Helmets debacle? It would seem to me that the honourable and principled thing to do would be to retract its request to support the nomination of the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize, and to honestly explain the reason for the retraction.
Because this is such an important matter and something that the Canadian public should be made aware of, I am taking the liberty of having this published as an “open letter to the NDP.” Moreover, I am forwarding this letter to Stéphane Dion, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, to alert him to the folly of acting on the NDP’s request regarding the While Helmets.
I write this with sadness and dismay, as I had done last fall with regard to the NDP’s election strategy.
John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar
The internationally recognized, legitimate government of Syria is on the verge of freeing Aleppo from ISIS and Al Nusra. This would be a decisive blow to the US/Saudi/Qatar plan to overthrow Assad, and would constitute a near final nail in the coffin of Obama’s disastrous regime change policy in Syria.
As defeat of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Aleppo nears, the US government, and its controlled main stream media is on a propaganda information war offensive of unprecedented nature, directed at discrediting Russia.
It is this US awareness of its own impotence as its Jihadi proteges in Aleppo face total defeat which accounts for all the angry rhetoric and cranking up of atrocity stories we have been seeing over the last week. These have now culminated in some typically furious denunciations of Russia by US ambassador Samantha Power on Sunday’s 25th September 2016 at the UN Security Council, over the course of which she actually accused Russia of “barbarism”.
Make no mistake about it, the Syrian army (with support from Russia and Iran) are close to a military victory in Aleppo. The simple fact that Power has given the below speech of lies and hypocrisy during an emergency UN Security Council session, is a clear indication that Al Qaeda is close to defeat, and ISIS is about to be crushed…and this crushes Power, and her neo-liberal/neocon gods of war.
The hypocrisy in Power’s speech is laughable as it is predictable. Listening to Power is listening to diplomacy at its worst.
Here are a few selected lines delivered from a US diplomat, who is seeing her ISIS fueled war go up in smoke, and our corrections to the inaccuracies stated.
“Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and Assad make war.”
Let us fix this statement for Power: “Instead of pursuing peace, The US and its ISIS/Al Qaeda jihadists make war.”
“White Helmets are first responders.”
We refer Power to the “White Helmets Hoax” post on The Duran. White Helmets is definitely not a first responder. Think of White Helmets as Al Qaeda PR in Syria.
“A month ago the world was shocked by the dazed stare of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh, as he sat at the back of an ambulance as his home was bombed. He was rescued by White Helmets.”
Is Power referring to the infamous picture taken by photojournalist Mahmoud Raslan who, aside from being associated with White Helmets, is connected to Al Nusra / Al Qaeda, and was part of the band of “moderates” who beheaded a Palestinian boy days before snapping the Aleppo boy photos.
“Russia has consistently said one thing and done the other.”
Let us fix this statement for Power: “The United States has consistently said one thing and done the other.”
Like saying for over eight months that they would seperate “moderate” rebels from jihadists…we are still waiting.
Russia on the other had has been nothing but consistent. It was invited by the UN internationally recognized, legitimate government of Syria (unlike the US), and has stated time and again that it sees no difference between America’s shades of terrorists, and will do what it must to keep Syria in one piece, without a black flag over damascus.
“A political transition is the only way to end this conflict.”
No there is a military solution, and after Syria and Russia exhausted all diplomatic options, the military option is now about to be played to its finality. That option involves US backed Al Qaeda and ISIS losing.
“You cannot carry out a massive military offensive and say you are for peace. That might work on Russia Today. But it doesn’t work when the world has reams of evidence proving what Russia is doing.”
When a large, internationally recognized news outlet reports something other than what the US controlled puppet mainstream media vomits out to the public, then that media organisation must be demonised time and again. RT must be doing something right to have it featured in Power’s UN speech. Perhaps that something is reporting the truth.
“What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counterterrorism; it is barbarism.”
No it’s counterterrorism. Russia is going after all terrorists in Syria. Whether those terrorists are ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda “rebranded”.
Power’s problem is that Russia is going after Power’s terrorists, who invaded and destabilised Syria, and now they are holed up, surrounded in East Aleppo…with no way out, and begging Power to save them from certain death.
“Russia, today will no doubt again accuse the United States of causing all of this chaos.”
A globe-spanning but little-known trade deal could be used to lock-in low environmental standards and undermine national efforts to tackle climate change, according to an Energydesk analysis of newly leaked documents.
The deal, a spiritual and practical sibling of the much-maligned TTIP and TPP free trade agreements, is designed to drive deregulation across the vast global services sector increasing international trade in everything from banking to energy services.
TIServices Agreement is a treaty designed to facilitate free trade between more than 50 major economies, including the entire Anglosphere and the EU. It could impact the lives of the 1.8 billion people.
It covers the services sector, which represents well over half of the global economy. The term ‘services’, however, is vague and could be applied to the trade of certain goods as well.
As well as the ‘Energy and Mining Related Services’ this article will cover, TISA would also govern a range of industries — from financial services to e-commerce and technology services
Sovereignty
The latest TISA draft contains clauses which, legal experts argue, could undermine the law-making power of participating national governments.
The treaty’s ‘stand-still’ and ‘ratchet’ clauses could prevent governments from rolling back on liberalisation policies, even if they are elected on a mandate to do just that.
It would also put in place a system that could make it difficult for governments to introduce new regulation, with a dispute panel ruling on whether a proposed action is in fact ‘necessary’.
That approach – as employed by the World Trade Organisation – usually ends up blocking new regulations, with only one of the 44 ‘right to regulate’ cases overseen by the WTO ultimately successful.
Somehow TISA is also even more secret than the notoriously covert CETA, TTIP and TPP deals, with parties unable to release details of negotiations until five years after it has taken effect.
Though the deal includes the EU and US it will also apply to numerous other countries and so offers an insight into the kind of multi-state trade agreements the UK would be offered if it were to leave the European single market.
Indeed the principles in these deals appear to be forming the basis of most global trade negotiations, including bilateral country-to-country arrangements.
States including Hong Kong and New Zealand are currently pursuing so-called cutting edge bilateral trade deals, replacing the ‘necessity test’ for new regulation with a ‘burdensome test’ — which would make regulating even harder.
TISA
TISA, however is the latest attempt at a multi-state deal and there are two key differences between it and its better known predecessors.
The first is that, where TTIP and CETA apply to both goods and services, TISA covers services exclusively.
But the significance of the global services sector can’t be overstated; it has become a far bigger part of the global economy than the trade of material goods.
The term is also very vague, which makes the implications of the TISA treaty far from straightforward to decipher.
Lawyers will have a field day.
Its annex on ‘Energy and Mining Related Services,’ for example, suggests the rules should simply apply “to measures affecting trade in energy and mining related services”.
That includes services that are “supplied to a juridical person engaged in the exploration, development, production, transmission, storage or distribution of energy or energy sources” but that definition is open to many interpretations.
Looking further than that, what will TISA actually do to these services markets?
It’s going to make them as deregulated as possible, opening them up to foreign businesses and removing barriers for trade.
It’s also going to make it more difficult to reverse the liberalising process, stopping – for example – governments from renationalising companies or industries.
Basically, once a market has been opened, it cannot be easily closed — not even a little.
‘Necessary’
The second big difference between TISA and TTIP is the enforcement method.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the latter deal is the dispute system that enables corporations to take action against countries whose policies they claim have hurt their business.
The ISDS, as it is called, does not appear in TISA.
Instead the deal relies on the World Trade Organisation’s state-to-state dispute method, with treaty members able to file challenges against each other over regulations they believe are a “disguised restriction on trade in services”.
A TISA panel will then judge whether the disputed action is in fact necessary — for improving public health, protecting the environment etc.
In practice as it is employed by the WTO, the ‘necessity test’ method almost always delivers verdicts against additional regulation.
In 44 WTO cases in which the right to regulate was challenged, the disputed regulation was judged to be necessary only once
You would expect that trend to continue in TISA, where partners are compelled to “alleviate market distortions and barriers to competition in the supply of energy related services.”
Paris Agreement
Unlike global trade deals global climate agreements currently have no enforcement mechanism.
The Paris Agreement both affirmed “the need to promote universal access to sustainable energy” and called for “making finance flows consistent with a pathway to low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”.
These commitments, however, are not as iron-clad as the rules outlined by the global trade agreements in the pipeline.
In fact the Paris Agreement’s ambitions – keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels – rely on an accelerated uptake of renewable energy, something that may be impossible without tough regulation.
Potentially the kind of regulation which TISA is supposed to stop.
On the eve of the first presidential debate, concern is growing among Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton supporters that her previous lead in the polls is narrowing and Republican rival Donald Trump is nearly “neck and neck” in voter support in key “swing states.”
In what are two of the three ‘bellweather’ states—Ohio and Florida (the other is Pennsylvania)—Trump appears ahead going into the first televised debate on Sept. 26. As of last week’s mid-September polling, he leads in Florida by 43.7 percent to 42.8 percent for Clinton. Other polls show him with a similar modest lead in Ohio. Should Trump win Florida and Ohio, it is highly likely he’d get the 270 electoral college votes necessary to win; and should he take Pennsylvania as well, it’s virtually assured he would.
U.S. presidential elections are not determined by the popular vote. They never have been. In the archaic and basically undemocratic U.S. electoral system—dominated by the highly conservative institution called the electoral college—all that matters this year is who wins the electoral college votes in the 8 or 9 “swing states.”
The remaining states are safely in either the Clinton or the Trump camp. The swing states, sometimes called the “battleground” states, are: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, and maybe North Carolina this year. The largest in terms of potential electoral college votes are Florida and Ohio. Pennsylvania is also significant. Whoever wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania—the bellwether states—will almost assuredly carry the other five as well; and whoever wins most of the swing states, wins the election.
Clinton may have problems mobilizing the very voter constituencies that made the big difference in giving Obama one more chance in 2012.
On the eve of the first presidential debate, concern is growing among Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton supporters that her previous lead in the polls is narrowing and Republican rival Donald Trump is nearly “neck and neck” in voter support in key “swing states.”
In what are two of the three ‘bellweather’ states—Ohio and Florida (the other is Pennsylvania)—Trump appears ahead going into the first televised debate on Sept. 26. As of last week’s mid-September polling, he leads in Florida by 43.7 percent to 42.8 percent for Clinton. Other polls show him with a similar modest lead in Ohio. Should Trump win Florida and Ohio, it is highly likely he’d get the 270 electoral college votes necessary to win; and should he take Pennsylvania as well, it’s virtually assured he would.
U.S. presidential elections are not determined by the popular vote. They never have been. In the archaic and basically undemocratic U.S. electoral system—dominated by the highly conservative institution called the electoral college—all that matters this year is who wins the electoral college votes in the 8 or 9 “swing states.”
The remaining states are safely in either the Clinton or the Trump camp. The swing states, sometimes called the “battleground” states, are: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, and maybe North Carolina this year. The largest in terms of potential electoral college votes are Florida and Ohio. Pennsylvania is also significant. Whoever wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania—the bellwether states—will almost assuredly carry the other five as well; and whoever wins most of the swing states, wins the election.
The outcome in the swing states will be determined in turn by which candidate can mobilize its constituencies and get out the vote. And that’s where “Clinton’s Ghosts” will play an important role, that is, reducing her ability to “turn out her vote” more than Trump is able to mobilize his.
Trump’s key constituencies are middle-aged and older whites in general, high school or less-educated white workers, religious conservatives, wealthy business types and investors, and the Tea party, radical and religious right. The Democrats’ constituencies are African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, the college-educated, urban women, trade unions in public employment and what’s left of the industrial working class, students and millennial youth under 30. This is the “Obama Coalition” created in 2008, that was barely held together in 2012, and is now in the process of fragmenting in 2016. The consequences of that break up may be determinative in the coming election.
The Ghost of Free Trade
On the eve of the first presidential debate, concern is growing among Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton supporters that her previous lead in the polls is narrowing and Republican rival Donald Trump is nearly “neck and neck” in voter support in key “swing states.”
In what are two of the three ‘bellweather’ states—Ohio and Florida (the other is Pennsylvania)—Trump appears ahead going into the first televised debate on Sept. 26. As of last week’s mid-September polling, he leads in Florida by 43.7 percent to 42.8 percent for Clinton. Other polls show him with a similar modest lead in Ohio. Should Trump win Florida and Ohio, it is highly likely he’d get the 270 electoral college votes necessary to win; and should he take Pennsylvania as well, it’s virtually assured he would.
U.S. presidential elections are not determined by the popular vote. They never have been. In the archaic and basically undemocratic U.S. electoral system—dominated by the highly conservative institution called the electoral college—all that matters this year is who wins the electoral college votes in the 8 or 9 “swing states.”
The remaining states are safely in either the Clinton or the Trump camp. The swing states, sometimes called the “battleground” states, are: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, and maybe North Carolina this year. The largest in terms of potential electoral college votes are Florida and Ohio. Pennsylvania is also significant. Whoever wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania—the bellwether states—will almost assuredly carry the other five as well; and whoever wins most of the swing states, wins the election.
The first ghost haunting Clinton is her historic, long-term advocacy of free trade deals from NAFTA to the current Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clinton has said she does not agree with the TPP, but only in its present form. She promises to “take a look” at it if elected. But that’s waffling that won’t fool union and white working class voters in the Ohio-Pennsylvania-Michigan-Wisconsin swing states that have seen their good jobs offshored and sent to other countries as a direct result of free trade deals from Bill Clinton’s NAFTA to Barack Obama’s TPP.
Nor will this former Democrat constituency forget how Obama in 2008 pledged, similar to Hillary, to take a look at changing NAFTA, but then went on to become the biggest advocate of free trade ever—cutting deals with Panama, Colombia, bilaterally with other countries and is now pushing hard for TPP and a similar deal with Europe.
Union workers in the Great Lakes area of Ohio-Pennsylvania-Michigan played a major role in carrying those swing states for Obama in 2008. The majority have likely already gone over to Trump, who’s position on free trade deals is more directly opposed than Hillary’s carefully worded ambivalence. If they turn out to vote, it will be for Trump.
The War Hawk Ghost
Another ghost haunting Clinton is her repeated and consistent war-hawk positions assumed while in the senate and then as secretary of state. Hillary voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was at the center of initiating war in Libya, and favored more direct U.S. military action in Syria.
As secretary of state, she also allowed—unchecked—her neocon-ridden state department, led by Undersecretary Virginia Nuland, to actively help provoke a coup in the Ukraine in 2014. No matter how hard she tries at the eleventh hour, Clinton cannot shed the war-hawk image she nurtured for more than a decade. This will cost her votes with millennials, who already deserted her for Sanders for her pro-war history.
The Ghost of Abandoned Millennials
College educated millennial youth are also abandoning Clinton as a result of the Obama administration’s failure to do something about their more than $1.2 trillion college debt and the long-term underemployed in part-time and temporary jobs with no benefits and little prospects for the future. The Obama administration may brag of the jobs it has created since the last recession, but most millennials languish in low pay, no benefit service employment, with more than a third living at home with parents and unable to start families or independent lives.
They may not like Trump but their resentment will likely translate into not voting for Clinton. Attempts to lure millennials back with promises of free college tuition are too late for those already indebted; and a few weeks of paid maternity leave for new parents appears as a token alternative for more generous childcare tax cuts proposed by Trump.
The Ghost of the Hispanic Vote
The constituencies of union labor, youth, and people of color were the voters that gave Obama his second chance in 2012 and returned him to the White House. He rewarded trade unions with the TPP and millennials with debt and underemployment.
Obama carried key swing states like Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and others largely as a result of the HIspanic vote as well. He promised them, in exchange for their vote in 2012, immigration reform, the Dream Act, and direct executive action. What they got was the largest mass deportations in modern U.S. history and broken families. Trump may insult Mexican-American voters with stupid off-the-cuff remarks and silly promises to build walls. But the deportations have had a far more devastating effect on Latino families and voters in key states in the Midwest, southwest and Florida.
Florida is a must-win swing state. Whoever loses Florida would have to win virtually all the remaining swing states. Obama carried more than two-thirds of the Latino vote Florida in 2012. Clinton has barely 50 percent support of that constituency today. In addition, a majority of the youth vote now favor Trump, not her. The ghost of past mistreated Latinos under Obama thus hangs heavy over Clinton in the present in that state—just as free trade and job loss do in the other key swing state of Ohio. Losing both means virtual defeat.
These ghosts hang heavy over the Clinton campaign in the swing states. Trump will have trouble with establishment Republicans and some Tea party types will certainly go to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. But Clinton may have even bigger problems with mobilizing white union workers, youth, and Hispanics—the very voter constituencies that made the big difference in giving Obama one more chance in 2012.
How the two candidates perform in the upcoming presidential debates will also weigh heavily on the election outcome. Can Clinton offset her voter turnout disadvantage by clearly prevailing in the upcoming debates? The election may be scheduled for November, but it may be all but over by October if she clearly doesn’t.
Jack Rasmus is the author of the just-released book, “Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges,” and the previous, “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy.” He blogs at jackrasmus.com.
Comments Off on Clinton and Trump “Neck to Neck”. The Ghosts Haunting Hillary: Her “War Hawk” Position, The TPP Trade Deal, The Hispanic Vote, The 1.2 Trillion “College Debt”
“Essentially she is now being tortured as punishment for an act of desperation.” — Nancy Hollander, lawyer for Chelsea Manning, Sep 24, 2016
It was not sufficient for US military authorities to sentence whistleblower Chelsea Manning to the onerous, disproportionate sentence of 35 years imprisonment for conniving with WikiLeaks in releasing classified material. (People have gotten less for gruesome, remorseless murders.) Punishment has a myriad of forms, and even within the carceral system, Manning has discovered that additional methods can be devised.
As with any penal system worth its brutal salt, minor infractions incite strong rebuke and hefty retaliation. Manning has previously been in hot water over the usual violations of the prison code, be they as innocuous as possessing an expired tube of toothpaste, or having inappropriately designated research materials used for the drafting of articles.
The three member disciplinary board at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas claimed that the punishment for Manning, which involves a fourteen day sentence with seven suspended days, was occasioned by an attempt to take her own life in July. A good deal of this gloomy effort was spurred on by official refusals to permit access to treatment for gender dysphoria. Manning has not merely been an aberration to US state security in her actions, but a transgender puzzle within the military establishment.
Left to such devices of desperation, the only form of meagre autonomy left is suicide, that one great act of liberation that throws off the captor and negates the need for their presence. It is the grand act of disruption. “And because liberation is destruction,” suggests Jean Améry, “it finds its most extreme possible confirmation in voluntary death.”[1] With, of course, the questionable point to what extent one remains in a voluntary state when confined in such circumstances.
But not even such a possibility could be permitted in a universe where solitary confinement becomes an excessive form of suicide prevention. There is a macabre institutional irony to this, given the fact that solitary confinement goes some way to provide ample encouragement to inmates to take their own lives.
Manning is therefore being incited without the means of being fulfilled. “It is unconscionable,” stated Justin Mazzola, researcher with Amnesty International USA, “that instead of giving her the medical help she needs, the government has put her in solitary confinement.”[2]
As the American Civil Liberties Union has noted, some 73 percent of suicides in incarceration tended to take place in isolation cells.[3] Adding to this grotesque figure is how many prisoners are held in what has been termed “restricted housing”, including a range of penal restrictions such as “administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation and protective custody”. The one thread that unites all is a heavy emphasis on social isolation.
The effort on the part of Manning to take her own life was not the only gripe the board had. Manning had been reading some supposedly seditious material – in so far as it was Gabriella Coleman’s Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy. Even in prison, Manning’s diet of cerebral consumption has moved into such areas as Coleman’s discussion of Anonymous, though it was always going to sail close to the wind of legality.
A statement from Manning gave some detail about the treatment. Manning was “acquitted of the ‘Resisting the Force Cell Move team’ charge” but found guilty of the “Conduct Which Threatens” charge. “This charge,” she clarifies, “was for the suicide attempt.”[4] Such an attempt, so went the charge, threatened the “orderly running, safety, good order and discipline or security” of the facility.
Having Coleman’s book in her possession amounted to being a breach of the “Prohibited Property” injunction, given that it was an unmarked copy. Even within cells, the threat of literature remains ominous and pressing, necessitating such actions as “disciplinary segregation”.
Manning has engaged in a range of actions that have further transmuted her actions into those of a political dissident. A five day hunger strike, oiled by public indignation managed to yield some health care concessions. But the prevailing weapon used by authorities of solitary confinement suggests that degrading the human spirit remains the acme of the US prison system.
That particular point of degradation is fundamentally spiritual and mental. As the US Supreme Court noted in supposedly less enlightened times in the case of In re Medley, 134 US 160, 168 (1890), such prisoners “fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them” while others became “violently insane” or took their own lives.
Most strikingly, such solitary punishment could hardly ever be said to reform a person, sabotaging personality and being. It could hardly ever have any relevance for Manning, whose conscience remains unhampered by the assaults. There was, in short, never anything to reform to begin with.
Far from enabling a person to enter a world after such an ordeal, such a cruel state, according to the Supreme Court, would have produced a defective of low “mental activity” incapable of providing service to the community. Manning’s supporters can only hope that such a state of mind has yet to be reached.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
When Liz Sly of the Washington Post published her latest deceptive and particularly biased piece titled, “A ferocious assault on Aleppo suggests the U.S. may be wrong on Syria,” she intended to give the impression that the United States sought peace in Syria. Never mentioned were open admissions by the US that it intended for years before the conflict even began to overthrow the government in Damascus and to specifically use sectarian extremists underwritten by US ally Saudi Arabia to do so.
Nor was it mentioned that so-called “moderates” fighting in Syria have long been tied directly to designated terrorist organizations, including Al Nusra with many groups openly aligning themselves under the Al Qaeda affiliate’s banner just before a large-scale offensive was launched against Syria’s northern city of Aleppo – a battle that continues even now.
Sly and other commentators among the Western media establishment cite Syrian and Russian planes carrying out airstrikes across Aleppo as a failure of the so-called Syrian ceasefire – a ceasefire in which the US carried out a sustained attack on Syrian forces in the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, “accidentally” giving forces of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) an edge, allowing them to seize valuable strategic territory. It was also a “ceasefire” armed militants refused to honor, including groups openly armed and backed by the United States and its allies.
Current bombing in Aleppo then, is not a “failure” for the US’ attempts to mediate a ceasefire, rather a failure for the US’ attempts to perpetuate a destructive war aimed toward achieving “regime change” merely under the guise of mediating a ceasefire.
US Army Col. Steve Warren, the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, was asked whether Russian airstrikes on Aleppo, the current epicenter of the war, meant that Moscow was preparing to end the cessation of hostilities (CoH) agreement between government forces and the opposition signed on February 29. Warren responded that it was “complicated” because al-Nusra “holds Aleppo” and is not party to the agreement.
Ceasefire or not, the US, Syria, and Russia agreed that Al Nusra – along with other designated terrorist organizations – would not be spared. This fact was cited by the US itself as a pretext for why it too was carrying out airstrikes – including at Deir ez-Zor – during the supposed ceasefire.
The collapse of the ceasefire in reality was both predictable and indicative of a much larger unraveling of US credibility both in Syria, and worldwide. It is a nation whose motives and objectives are easily exposed before an increasingly large and aware segment of the global public, standing in stark contrast to its simplistic, often oafish and self-contradictory rhetoric.
Syria’s conflict cannot be resolved through disingenuous political deals brokered by a party who seeks only to finish its stated objective of “regime change” and the “partitioning” of a sovereign nation. Thus, Syria’s fate will be determined on the battlefield amid a struggle between America’s faltering political capital and the reality of Syrian, Russian, and Iranian military and logistical limitations when faced with the US and its multinational military, economic, and political coalition arrayed to dismember and destroy Syria.
Analysts and the curious alike, in gauging the future possibilities of this conflict, should pay close attention to the size and disposition of forces on the ground, the political, economic, and logistical strength of external players influencing the battlefield, and the political capital of each respective party – and leave line-by-line analysis of meaningless US-sponsored ceasefire agreements to Western political pundits intent on peddling non sequitur talking points from a troubled, fabricated, and very much unraveling Western narrative.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.
Are anarchists carrying water for Uncle Sam? SubMedia, a website that publishes “anarchist news and resistance updates” in video form, is now featuring a 5 minute video, “What Is Mutual Aid?” Toward the end of the video the narrator tells us that “glimpses of the anarchist ideal of mutual aid can be seen in . . . the bravery of the White Helmets of Aleppo who risk their lives to pull children from the collapsed ruins of buildings hit by Assad’s barrel bombs.” Really? This is hard to square with reporting from journalists like Vanessa Beeley, who has researched the White Helmets on the ground in Syria, and found that most people there have never heard of them, that they are a creation of western propaganda.
Vanessa Beeley reports that “with over $60 million in their back pocket courtesy of USAID, the UK Foreign Office and various EU nations like the Netherlands, this group is possibly one of the most feted and funded entities within the west’s anti-Syrian NGO complex, a pivotal part of the clandestine shadow state building enterprise inside of Syria. Like many other ‘NGOs’, the White Helmets have been deployed by the west to derail the Syrian state, first by undermining existing civic structures and by disseminating staged PR to facilitate regime change propaganda, through western and Gulf state media outlets.”
Felicity Artbuthnot in another recent article quotes the Ron Paul Institute as saying: “We have demonstrated that the White Helmets are an integral part of the propaganda vanguard that ensures obscurantism of fact and propagation of Human Rights fiction that elicits the well-intentioned and self righteous response from a very cleverly duped public. A priority for these NGOs is to keep pushing the No Fly Zone scenario which has already been seen to have disastrous implications for innocent civilians in Libya, for example.”
SubMedia has not responded to a query as to whether it was simply mistaken in promoting the White Helmets, nor has it edited the video. As things now stand, it appears subMedia is part of an effort to promote these poseurs as humanitarians, coincidentally in sync with that much larger other video outlet, Netflix, who has just rolled out an exclusive documentary promoting the White Helmets as heroes. According to Rick Sterling, the group Code Pink actually put out a press release promoting the Netflix movie.
Where there are PR campaigns, there are suddenly awards. According to Sterling,
“on 22 September 2016 it was announced that the Right Livelihood Award, the so called ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’, is being given to the US/UK created White Helmets ‘for their outstanding bravery, compassion and humanitarian engagement in rescuing civilians from the destruction of the Syrian civil war.’ Sterling continues: “
The Right Livelihood organizers may come to regret their selection of the White Helmets because the group is not who they claim to be. In fact, the White Helmets are largely a propaganda tool promoting western intervention against Syria. Unlike a legitimate rescue organization such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, the ‘White Helmets’ only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition.”
One must beware of radicals sneaking a bit of poison into an otherwise good message. The famous anarchist Noam Chomsky decried the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, but agreed with the major premise of that attack, which was that Slobodan Milosevic was a brutal dictator who had to be stopped. This went a long way to defusing an antiwar effort leading up to the NATO bombing campaign. Likewise, SubMedia has lots of good information on anarchist principles, but inserts talking points straight out of the US State Department, like the one about “Assad’s barrel bombs.” We are led down a moral road, only to be confused.
In another subMedia video, “Requiem for Syria“, an anonymous narrator called “Stimulator” would have us believe that an anarchist revolution is struggling to be born in Syria, on a par with that in 1930’s Spain, and that Bashar al-Assad is responsible for destroying that revolution. According to Stimulator, “leftists believe that Assad has been targeted for regime change by the United Snakes and its allies and that Syria is being protected by staunchly anti-imperialist homies, Russia and Iran. But putting aside the fact that Russia and Iran are both gangsta imperialist states in their own right who oppress the fuck out of their own citizens, there’s an even more obvious flaw in this logic — the fact that the United States isn’t trying to overthrow Assad at all. The real threat to Assad’s fascist fucking regime has come from Syrians themselves, who, after growing sick and motherfucking tired of having their peaceful protests bombed and machine-gunned, launched a popular fucking uprising, and it’s racist as fuck to ignore that.”
Hidden amid the hip language is another US State Department talking point — that the war in Syria was started by Assad attacking his own people. SubMedia is attempting to deny on the fact that Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, and NATO are indeed seeking regime change and have demonized Assad in order to bring that about. Stimulator is in perfect agreement with the main premise of the aggressors: Assad is a brutal dictator, killing legitimate protestors trying to free themselves from his oppression. According to Stimulator, “there’s only one person who can end this civil war in Syria – I’m talking about Syria’s greasy, sunken-eyed, goose-necked dictator himself, Bashar al-Assad.” We are led to believe that one man is the sole cause of this country’s problems. We heard the same with Milosevic, Saddam, and Gaddafi.
Stimulator goes on to interview Robin Yassin-Kassab, British author of Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War, who agrees with Stimulator that the left has been duped into believing “that this is a regime change plot directed by the United States against the glorious resistance regime in Syria, and the facts don’t bear that out at all.” The people of Syria are in revolt, he claims, and Assad is trying to put down the revolt. Yassin-Kassab asserts, without evidence, that “women have been subjected to a mass rape campaign which the regime organized.” This was a propaganda talking point in the attack on Libya, and, for that matter, Yugoslavia.
People living outside Syria lack first-hand knowledge, but a number of sources in Syria have said that Assad actually has the support of the majority of the people there. Lily Martin writes that
“as an eye witness to the entire war in Syria, from March 2011 to present, I can state this was no revolution. I am an American citizen living permanently in Syria, which is my husband’s birthplace. I have been here 24 years. A real revolution would have the support of the people, inside Syria, not Syrians living in Paris and London for the past 40 years. To have a real grassroots uprising, you need the support of the people living inside Syria, who would share your views. If it had been a real uprising/revolution, the whole process could have taken 3-6 months, because the Army would have followed the will of the people, given the fact the Syrian Army is made up of Syrians of all ethnic and religious sects. The Syrian Army is a true representative of the Syrian population. If the population wanted the goals stated by the ‘protesters’, which was to establish Islamic law in Syria, and to abolish the current secular government, the Army would have eventually followed along, expressing the will of the people.”
Lily Martin and Vanessa Beeley are, finally, more credible than the anonymous figures at subMedia. SubMedia is also, like Chomsky, silent about Israeli and US government partnership in the September 11, 2001 attacks, when such perceptive radicals as these should certainly know better. It is not above the practitioners of deception to create an opposition that says a lot of the right things, but does the essential dirty work. Indeed, this is an important part of their trade. The avalanche of lies provided in the mainstream media can be organized by run-of-the-mill propagandists. The real propagandists are the ones who cultivate people who actually look like they’re on our side.
If there ever was a revolution in Syria, it was quickly overwhelmed by zionist manipulation of the United States into destroying yet another country on the list of nations that threaten Israel, and, for good measure, getting the US and Russia to destroy each other so that Israel will emerge as the world’s new superpower, presiding over the ashes. Such is the insanity of current world events.
On Friday, US President Barack Obama vetoed a bill passed unanimously in Congress that is intended to allow Americans to sue foreign governments alleged to be responsible for terrorist attacks in the US. With overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill, titled “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), Congress is expected to override Obama’s veto later this week.
The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month, in the aftermath of the release of 28 pages of secret government documents detailing the role of the government of Saudi Arabia in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. It has been sponsored by organizations representing September 11 victims and their families who aim to sue the Saudi government.
Spurred on by the Pentagon and CIA, as well as a desire to maintain close ties to the Saudi regime, the Obama administration opposes the bill for a number of reasons. Above all, increased litigation on the 9/11 attacks threatens to further expose the fraudulent character of both the official investigation into the attacks, as well as the so-called “war on terror” launched in their aftermath.
The attacks provided the pretext to initiate longstanding plans to wage aggressive wars in pursuit of the oil resources of the Middle East, as part a broader effort to maintain American imperialism’s hegemony throughout the region and the Eurasian continent as a whole. Through the “war on terror” begun under Bush and deepened under Obama, the US has destroyed entire societies from Afghanistan, to Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria, in the process killing over a million people.
The central lies deployed by the Bush administration in 2003 to justify its attack on Iraq were that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.
In reality, the country most deeply implicated in the attacks was Saudi Arabia, home to 15 out of 19 of the hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden. Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks were confirmed by the 28-page segment from the report issued by the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” released to the public last July. The 28 pages had been stowed away in a Capitol Hill basement vault since 2002, with only members of Congress allowed to read them, barred from taking notes or discussing their content with the outside world.
The redacted document begins by stating, “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government.” It goes on to detail that at least two of the hijackers were “provided substantial assistance” by Omar al-Bayoumi, whom the FBI identified as a Saudi intelligence agent, while some hijackers received paychecks for no-show jobs from a company financed by the Saudi Ministry of Defense.
In order to maintain official ties to Saudi Arabia—alongside Israel, Washington’s principal Middle East ally for over 50 years and the largest buyer of American weapons—these facts had to be suppressed. While claiming without any evidence that Iraq bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the US was forced to bury real and substantial links to the Saudi regime.
During the buildup and launching of the war in Iraq in 2003, many of the same congressmen now professing their desire to find justice for the 9/11 victims supported the campaign of the CIA and Saudi monarchy to keep the Saudi role a secret by suppressing the 28-page document. The present bipartisan congressional support for JASTA is thus a cynical and hypocritical political maneuver.
The release of the document and the passing of JASTA coincides with the 2016 presidential election campaign, in which the two candidates have been jockeying for the support of the military and are both campaigning on aggressively “antiterror” platforms, portraying the US as virtually under siege. Both Clinton and Trump released statements criticizing Obama’s decision, saying they would have signed the bill into law.
The support of the candidates and Congress for the bill is also a manifestation of the deepening rift between the US and Saudi Arabia. Last year, against the wishes of the Saudi regime, the Obama administration began a rapprochement with Iran through the signing of a nuclear agreement. Most recently, there have been rising tensions between Washington and Riyadh over US foreign policy in Syria and the broader Middle East.
At the same time, the country’s continuing importance is highlighted by the fact that influential sections of the national security apparatus were able to pressure Obama to veto the bill, as part of an effort to maintain good relations with Riyadh. A bipartisan group of former national security officials, including President George W. Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley and attorney general Michael Mukasey, President Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense William Cohen, and Richard Clarke, a national security aide to both Clinton and Bush, penned an open letter to Obama urging him to veto the bill.
They wrote, “The harm this legislation will cause the United States will be both dramatic and long-lasting,” and if enacted, the bill “will most certainly undermine our relationship with one of our most important allies, Saudi Arabia, and damage our relationship with the entire Middle East.”
While not explicitly naming Saudi Arabia, Obama made clear in his veto letter that the bill threatened US foreign relations. He writes, “A number of our allies and partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the bill. By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their cooperation on key national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions.”
In his veto message to Congress, Obama also expressed concern that setting this precedent in the US “could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials—including our men and women in uniform—for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties.”
In other words, if similar legislation were enacted in virtually any country in the world, lawsuits could be brought against the US government to demand reparations for decades of imperialist slaughter. In the past quarter century alone, American imperialism has laid waste to entire societies, killing and displacing millions of innocent people and creating the largest refugee crisis since the end of World War II.
The new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Tomás Ojea Quintana, called this week for increased support for the victims of Typhoon Lionrock, which devastated the northeastern part of North Korea earlier this month, according to Relief Web, a website run by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
“According to official figures, 138 people were killed and 400 people remain missing,” Relief Web reports, “The UN estimates that 140,000, including pregnant women, persons with disabilities, older persons and children, require assistance.”
Ojea Quintana urged the international community to increase the support for on-going humanitarian efforts on the ground and stressed, “Given the scale of destruction, the number of individuals affected, and the fact that winter is rapidly approaching, time is of the essence.”
Ojea Quintana noted the sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council on North Korea exclude humanitarian assistance and added, “Such aids are now critical to protect the rights to food, health and adequate housing of those affected by Typhoon Lionrock.”
Worst Disaster in Seventy Years
Typhoon Lionrock, which swept through North Hamgyeong and Yanggang Provinces in North Korea from August 29 through September 1, raised the water level of the Tumen River by six to twelve meters and flooded populated areas. The town of Gangan in Hoeryeong City, North Hamgyeong Province reports twenty percent of its population as either dead or missing. An international team of 22 people who surveyed the affected areas from September 6 to September 9 reportedly said, “There is not a single building left standing in the town of Gangan, and it appears as if the entire town has fallen through the earth.”
A UN report released by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says the scale and scope of the flood damage exceeds preliminary predictions. The typhoon, it says, has destroyed roads leading to Musan and Yeonsa Counties in North Hamgyong Province – making it difficult for relief workers to reach the hardest-hit areas.
It warns the flooding and landslides, which took place just before the fall harvest, have likely knocked out essential crops. Secondary damage from lack of drinking water due to the destruction of water supply plants and transmittable diseases, such as dysentery and respiratory infections could intensify the crisis. The World Food Program warns temperatures will start to drop to below freezing levels in the northern regions of North Korea in late October and fall to negative thirty degrees celsius in the dead of winter. In order to survive through the winter, it said, the flood victims will need continuous assistance.
North Korea also called the latest flood “the worst natural disaster in seventy years” and has appealed for international assistance. Banks, however, are hesitant to transfer money to North Korea due to the UN-imposed sanctions against the country, and this hinders humanitarian assistance, says the World Food Program.
Park Administration Rejects Calls for Humanitarian Aid
The Park Geun-hye administration announced this week that even if North Korea were to make a direct appeal to the South for humanitarian assistance, it would not oblige. At a briefing on September 19, South Korea’s Unification Minister Jeong Jun-hee linked North Korea’s fifth nuclear test to the question of humanitarian assistance and accused North Korea of prioritizing nuclear weapons development over civilian needs. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Seon Nam-guk echoed this view at a briefing the following day.
When asked if the government’s position contradicts the humanitarian assistance clause in South Korea’s ‘North Korea Human Rights Act,’ which went into effect in earlier this month, Jeong replied, “Considering all aspects of the current situation, it is not appropriate to say we must provide humanitarian assistance according to the North Korea Human Rights Act.”
Article 7 of the enforcement ordinance of the North Korea Human Right Act says South Korea shall provide humanitarian assistance for the people of North Korea in moments of urgent crisis, including natural disasters.
South Korean Civil Society Demands Assistance for Flood Victims
Civil society organizations in South Korea, on the other hand, are demanding the government open a channel for them to send humanitarian assistance to their counterparts in the north.
The National Council of Civic Groups for Cooperation with the North, composed of fifty-four organizations, has applied for official permission from the Ministry of Unification to have contact with North Korean citizens for the purpose of providing humanitarian assistance to flood victims and is awaiting a response from the ministry.
In a statement released on September 22, the Labor Division of the June 15 South Korean Committee for Reunification of Korea, composed of the two major South Korean labor union federations – Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions – demanded the Park Geun-hye administration immediately allow humanitarian assistance for the North Korean flood victims. “Even if the Park government tries to stop us, the workers in the south will actively participate in providing assistance for flood victims in the north,” it declared.
Opposition parties are also joining the chorus of voices for humanitarian assistance. “From a humanitarian perspective, we cannot delay government and civil society assistance for the flood victims in North Korea,” said Minjoo Party Floor Leader Woo Sang-ho at a meeting of the party’s supreme council at the National Assembly on September 19.
Representative Jo Bae-sook of the People’s Party echoed this view – “Through humanitarian assistance, we need to create an opportunity to open the door for dialogue. The Ministry of Unification should allow contact with the North as soon as possible to facilitate humanitarian assistance by civil society groups.”
The images and sounds I recorded in Haiti during my December 2003-January 2004 trip have had a profound impact on my life, as the events which unfolded then and shortly afterwards continue to affect the lives of the people for whom I care the most.
A few weeks after my return to Canada, the dreaded coup d’état happened on February 29, 2004.
Counterspin, the CBC show in which I participated alongside Ezili Danto (Marguerite), Jean Fils-Aimé and Chlotilde Charlot, is indicative of the deep wounds inflicted on the Haitian people by “The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” (code word for the secret meetings held to plot the 2004 coup and foreign occupation of Haiti).
More than a decade later, after having counted over 1 million Haitian victims of U.N. cholera, countless rapes and murders at the hands the foreign occupation forces, the perverts in blue helmets; having seen the return of Duvalier ahead of President Aristide… I wonder if my brothers and sisters who were once either supporters or deniers of the coup, have a different assesment now, than they had then.
Unfortunately, this was one of the last episodes of Counterspin. Now, the spin goes on with little challenge, if any, on CBC Radio-Canada.
Jad Nasr lives in Syria. He’s 29, and he has a Master’s in English literature. He sometimes uses his considerable talents by serving as translator for high Syrian dignitaries, such as the Grand Mufti.
He also has the scar from a bullet wound in his chest, and he receives death threats. He explains that terrorists shot him because they didn’t want to hear the truth. Presumably, the terrorists prefer their own version of the “truth”, as dictated by Wahhabi – supporting al Jazeera and Safa TV… as well as all mainstream media messaging promulgated by the West.
Jad’s story is not pleasant, and it highlights what Syrians have to endure on a daily basis. He says that his brother was kidnapped last year, and that the terrorists tortured him and destroyed his knees. Now he can’t walk. He also told me that his cousin, who was serving in the Syrian Arab Army, lost his leg when Wahhabi suicide bombers attacked his military vehicle. Another cousin was kidnapped in 2012, and remains in captivity.
The terrorists have a talent for kidnapping. Nasr explained that in one operation, they used false flag tactics to capture tanks, and ultimately to capture thousands of Syrian soldiers at Douma, Syria.
The terrorists also like to showcase their defensive tactics. One of their favorites is to use captives as human shields. Nasr’s testimony and video evidence demonstrate kidnapped individuals being put in cages, and used as human shields in town squares. Needless to say, when the terrorists occupy towns or parts of towns and cities, they are necessarily using human captives as shields, and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) takes tremendous risks by fighting house to house, as they do.
Whereas the U.S, for example, carpet bombed Falluja in Iraq, the SAA, doesn’t have that “luxury” since it avoids killing Syrian civilians at all costs.
The terrorists control occupied territories with unspeakable barbarism. A witness to the massacre at Adra described the scene in these words:
The rebels began to attack the government centers, and attacked the police station—where all the policemen were killed after only a brief clash because of the large numbers of the attackers. They (the attackers) then headed to the checkpoint located on the edge of the city before moving to the clinic, where they slaughtered one from the medical staff and put his head in the popular market. They then dragged his body in front of townspeople who gathered to see what was happening. Bakery workers who resisted their machinery being taken away were roasted in their own oven. Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic Front fighters went from house to house with a list of names and none of those taken away then has been seen since.’
When the Syrian army would try to enter Adra the Jihadists would throw women and children from the 20,000 people it captured off the top floors in front of the army.”
Nasr also discussed the lies propagated by imperialists, and believed by multitudes. He says that for the first three weeks of the so-called “revolution”, police and security personnel were ordered to not carry guns. It was during this time that 15 of Nasr’s friends were killed by so-called “peaceful protestors”.
These same “peaceful protestors” were the spearhead of the Western-orchestrated “regime change” operations, wherein the Muslim Brotherhood and foreign operatives played central roles. The “Arab Spring” was a foreign intelligence operation from the beginning.
Recent estimates suggest that terrorists from about 100 countries are currently infesting Syria. This, he says, coupled with the legal interventions of the “Axis of resistance”, and the illegal war crimes of NATO and its allies, means that the dirty war on Syria is increasingly a world war.
Those of us who still believe the war lies are enabling imperialists who are pushing us towards the unthinkable.
Council of Canadians launches new Boycott Nestlé campaign in response to company’s continued water grabs
Corporate giant Nestlé continued its privatization creep on Thursday as it won approval to take over another Canadian community’s water supply, claiming it needed the well to ensure “future business growth.”
Nestlé purchased the well near Elora, Ontario from Middlebrook Water Company last month after making a conditional offer in 2015, the Canadian Pressreports.
In August, the Township of Centre Wellington made an offer to purchase the Middlebrook well site to protect access to the water for the community. Consequently, the multinational—which claimed it had no idea the community was its competitor—waived all its conditions and matched the township’s offer in order to snag the well for itself.
Those conditions included conducting pump tests to determine if the watershed met the company’s quality and quantity requirements, the Canadian Press reports.
Nestlé dropped its conditions, including pump tests for quality, to win the bid. (Photo: Raúl Hernández González/flickr/cc)
Moreover, Nestlé has stated that the Middlebrook site will only be a backup for its other nearby well and bottling plant in Aberfoyle, where the corporation already draws up to 3.6 million liters (roughly 951,000 gallons) of water a day. The company reportedly plans to extract as much as 1.6 million liters (almost 423,000 gallons) a day from Middlebrook to be transported to its bottling facility.
All this comes as parts of southern Ontario and British Columbia face severe drought conditions amid dwindling water supplies and Nestlé pushes to renew its permits for its Aberfoyle plant, the advocacy group Council of Canadians warned.
The organization on Thursday launched a Boycott Nestlé campaign which states, “Groundwater resources will not be sufficient for our future needs due to drought, climate change, and over-extraction. Wasting our limited groundwater on frivolous and consumptive uses such as bottled water is madness. We must not allow groundwater reserves to be depleted for corporate profit.”
Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow told the Canadian Press about the Aberfoyle plant, “Allowing a transnational corporation to continue to mine this water is a travesty, especially given that most local people can get clean, safe, and affordable water from their taps.”
In her new book Boiling Point: Government Neglect, Corporate Abuse, and Canada’s Water Crisis, Barlow writes that Nestlé makes more than $2 million a year in profits from its Aberfoyle facility alone.
She also noted to the Canadian Press that the Elora well “sits on the traditional territory of the Six Nations of the Grand River, 11,000 of whom do not have access to clean running water.”
The Syrian army, Hezbollah and Liwaa Al-Quds, supported by Russian warplanes, launched an attack on Jaish al-Fatah militants in the Old Ramouseh Neighborhood of Aleppo city. Following an intense firefight, the pro-government forces took control of the Ramouseh Bakery. If the Old Ramouseh Neighborhood is secured, the Sheikh Sa’eed Neighborhood will become the next target of the loyalists.
Russian heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” will be deployed in the composition of a group of Russian ships in the eastern Mediterranean, Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu said at a meeting of the military department on September 21. Currently, the Russian naval group in the area includes not less than six warships and three or four support vessels. The group’s capabilities will be increased with a carrier strike group led by Admiral Kuznetsov.
The Russian Defense Ministry also plans to test new weapons in Syria. Admiral Kuznetsov ‘s air grouping is going to use Kh-38 missiles and a new guidance system SVP-24 for unguided bombs in a combat situation. It’s reported that the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft cruiser will carry the Su-33 and the MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets, as well as with the Ka-52K Katran helicopters on its board.Syrian War Report – September 22, 2016: Russia to Test Modern Weapon Systems in Syria
Reports have been appearing in various pro-government media outlets since September 20 that some Russian warships, deployed in Syria’s coastal waters, hit with missiles a foreign-led military operations room near Aleppo city, killing 30 Israeli, US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers.
The military operations room was allegedly located in the western part of Aleppo province in the middle of Sam’an mountain. It was set up by foreign intelligence services in order to coordinate operations of various militant group against the Syrian government forces in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib.
Most of the pro-government media outlets cites the Arabic-language service of the Russian Sputnik news agency as a main source of the information.
AlMasdarNews and the Iranian Fars News Agency are among the sources that had disseminated the info.
While there are no doubts that various ‘opposition’ and terrorist groups in Syria are trained, supplied and managed by foreign intelligence services, the pro-government sources have not provided video or photo evidences in order to confirm this report. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on the issue.
The so-called Labour Law, passed en force by the French government on 20 July, is the most serious attack against the “Code du Travail,” already undermined for the past thirty years. A short historical overview is necessary to better grasp the destructive scope of this law, promoted and enforced by a socialist government – cruel irony!
The Labour Code is a compilation of regulations giving structures to the relationship between employees and employers at the national level. It emerged after the shock of the 1906 catastrophe of Courrières, Northern France, where 1099 miners lost their lives.
The underlying idea was to adapt labour to people, and not people to labour. If the principle of 3×8 (8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure and 8 hours of sleep) was acknowledged, it was not to please companies’ bosses but people themselves, so that they can live from and with their labour.
So when President François Hollande states that “we need to adapt labour law to companies’ needs,” this is a conceptual counter-revolution. Nothing is modern in this statement, and it has nothing to do with the crisis. He confessed it himself: “(the labour law) will not produce effects in terms of employments for a few months. It is more about setting up a new social model.” He made crystal clear that unemployment was a pretext, and that the objective was to break with the existing rationale of the labour code. The Labour Law should therefore be seen for what it really is: a neoliberal reconsideration of decades of struggles led by trade unions and the Left to protect workers. Even employers were surprised by the content of the Law, which goes much further that any right-wing previous attempts to change the labour code.
It is useful to stress (time and time again) that in a company, there is no such thing as equality between the two co-contracting parts: employers and employees. Labour laws are – and must remain – universal, whatever the company’s size, its specificity, its branch. They must prevail over contracts, agreements, derogations, exceptions – and not otherwise. This is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as by several Conventions of the International Labour Organization.
During the four-month mobilization against the Law, trade unions reminded over and over again that the labour code is the historical expression of the social balance of power. One might even say that it is social public order and the rule of law within companies.
From article 1 of the preamble of the Labour Law, it is obvious that the aim is to change everything. It therefore states that “liberties and fundamental rights of the people” can be subjected to limitations “if these are justified by the necessities of the company’s good management.” After imposing the state of emergency upon the public sphere, they want to impose it upon workers.
A few examples will illustrate the profound transformations entailed in the Law. It will alter the rules on working time by giving companies greater flexibility to exceed the legal cap on employee work hours. Currently, France’s statutory thirty-five-hour workweek permits overtime of up to ten hours a day and forty-eight hours a week for full-time workers. The government’s proposal would raise the daily legal maximum to twelve hours “in case of increased activity or for reasons related to the organization of the company.”
The Labour Law would also allow the labour ministry to temporarily increase the weekly limit to as much as sixty hours if “exceptional circumstances” require it. Meanwhile, the legislation would considerably reduce the bonus paid to employees who work more than thirty-five hours in a week.
Of equal significance are provisions in the law that would lower the cap on legal damages for “unfair dismissal.” In France, workers who lose their job without “just cause” are eligible to seek compensation through the labour courts. That means that if you are laid off because your company isn’t making money, your employer has to pay you a settlement commensurate with your length of employment. The Labour Law would lower the legal limit on damages, so that, for instance, a worker with twenty years of service could end up collecting just twelve months worth of salary.
The proposal would also change the rules on dismissals, making it easier for companies to lay off employees for economic reasons. French law requires that businesses that want to layoff employees without cause provide a valid justification – with the Labour Law a claim that it is economically necessary would be enough.
Perhaps most controversially, the proposal would permit firms to negotiate “offensive agreements” at the company level. These agreements will be allowed to undercut existing standards on pay rates, working hours, and other aspects of the employment contract. In the past, companies that wanted to negotiate these kinds of company agreements had to prove that they were necessary to prevent bankruptcy or avoid layoffs.
Now, companies that want to expand their operations or enter new markets could demand concessions from their workers, even if these givebacks would violate the terms of established collective bargaining agreements or existing labour laws. Furthermore, the law would make it easier for companies to negotiate agreements with employee representatives, as long as they were backed by 30 per cent of the workforce.
Business’s Assault on Employment Standards
All in all, these changes would be highly beneficial to employers.
From business’s perspective, French labour law is filled with “rigid” legal restrictions and costly regulatory requirements: from the statutes on dismissals and working time to the high minimum wage, business sees the labour code as an intolerable burden. The Labour Law would be a major step toward alleviating that burden.
Worst of all, the law would eviscerate the code du travail, by permitting employers to circumvent its statutory regulations through company-level agreements. For French labour organizations, this is the biggest problem with the proposal. As Philippe Martinez head of the CGT (France’s leading labour federation) notes, “The main principle of our opposition to this law is that it allows each company to have its own labour code.”
In this way, it would reverse the “hierarchy of norms” in the French labour market. Traditionally, employment regulations ran from the code du travail downward: labour law set the framework for the employment contract, which was further regulated by collective bargaining agreements negotiated at the sectoral level.
Now, that hierarchy would run in the opposite direction: company agreements, reached with workers who may or may not be represented by a union, would become the central terrain of collective negotiations. Decentralized bargaining would rule over legal regulation and sectoral negotiations. The bill would thus allow for a sustained assault on the employment standards established by the code du travail.
In general terms, the bill is not dissimilar to the various versions applied in other Southern European countries: it makes dismissal and mass redundancies easier, whether economically motivated or not, and it weakens collective agreements and employment law in favour of company agreements that damage working hours and in turn salaries. All this against a background of very high unemployment and where the expected growth is primarily due to the fall in the price of oil and in the euro. Other elements are being negotiated at the same time, such as unemployment insurance, for which the government is exploring degressive compensation once more. Again, this is no surprise as similar reforms exist elsewhere.
Trade Union Response?
Although joint responses were initially made, the trade union movement quickly found itself riven in two to form the new model that has been in place for a few years now. At least this initial response meant that the discussion among the unions of the complex issues of employment law were heard by employees and young people. The primary root of these divisions is because the more moderate segment of the trade union movement (said to be assisting the reforms) wants to be able to sign company agreements in a context where strong differences often prevent the majorities from forming groups.
It is worth noting that the movement was initiated by a handful of activists, far from trade unions’ directions, through the launch of an online petition. The petition against the new labour law gathered over a million signatures within a few days. It has lent credibility to those unions which most strongly oppose the new law (CGT, the FSU, FO, Solidaires and others) and which, in turn, have had the sense to view the labour law as an issue that goes beyond the realms of the unions and employees. We have witnessed the creation of a global broad front including unions, internet activists, people on the fringes of the socialist party and community activists. This unusual starting point made it possible to mobilize very significant sectors of young people in particular: university and college students, but also young employees in precarious positions or unemployed young workers, employees of small companies, some of whom first demonstrated 10 years ago during the movement that led to the contrat première embauche (first employment contract), a bill for low-cost contracts for young people, being thrown out. All these young people, generally not affected by unions came to swell the ranks of the demonstrators at the beginning of March. They are also the activists behind the Nuit Debout demonstrations, a combination of the ideas of intermittent artists, grassroots activists, non-professional journalists and the film “Merci patron!,” a sort of celebration of class warfare.
The unions that oppose the labour law have maintained their united front in spite of government manoeuvres, mainly targeting opposition from college and university students. Substantial concessions to young people have been made, but the core of the labour law remains unchanged. Unions were faced with a majority of the public that did not want the labour law and, at the same time, difficulties to organize a mass mobilization of employees to strike and bring about the final blow for the legislation. The unions’ bastions in the public sector were there, but their involvement was low as the reform does not affect them directly. A number of companies from the private sector joined the demonstrations, but that was not enough.
Rather than a central thread, woven by the inter-union space on its own, or a professional sector that could demonstrate the permanence of the movement by striking, the situation was one of constant resistance which can be seen in a number of movements.
The inter-union space united them by calling for inter-profession strikes and college and university student demonstration days were an additional tool. Some sectors are debating how better to combine their interests (the collective rail convention debate) and involvement in this movement by an extended strike, and the Nuit Debout demonstrations ensure the movement attracts attention in Paris and also in some suburbs and a number of towns in the region. These Nuit Debout demonstrations may address global issues that concern democracy and social change, but they were born from the movement opposing the labour law, making them a place for exchange, for encouragement and a place that unites struggles. These circumstances, when combined with the institutional problems facing a struggling minority government, leave open the possibility of a victory. They also mark the arrival of a new generation on the political and social scene, a promise of future engagement and new life for the trade union movement, if it can harness the power of this new generation and take into consideration its demands and the fact that it thinks and acts independently.
The inter-union coordination has called for another demonstration after the summer break, in September. Even if the government used the 49-3 article of the Constitution – providing it with right of bypassing any kind of parliamentary debate to enforce the Law in July – it is important for the unions to keep occupying public spaces – even if only punctually. It is too early to tell whether the movement will disappear. But one cannot deny that the trade union movement has suffered a serious blow. But regardless of the forthcoming demonstration – the first one after the Law was passed – trade unions have been reinvigorated. The relationship they established with new social movements such as Nuit Debout may produce fruits that yet have to be discovered – most notably in terms of better including demands of precarious workers, well represented on French squares. •
Maxime Benatouil holds an MA in sociology and political science (European Studies) and is working for the transform! Akademia Network, co-facilitating the projects on Energy, Labour, and on European Social Movements. He is a Paris-based project facilitator at transform! europe where this article first appeared.
The author is Director of an influential think tank, the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS), and a retired lieutenant general of Russia’s foreign intelligence service
Andrey Afanasyev: Some experts say that the incident in Syria was not just an effort to provoke Russia, but to involve it in a global conflict. Are today’s American or their elites in favor of this?
Leonid Reshetnikov: We need to take into account that Americans like using well-tested methods. This was the scheme they used in Syria, where they just signed a truce; Russia is busy with elections, no one expects an attack, so they think they’ll probably get away with it: “We’ll see how Russia responds”.They did the same thing in Georgia on August 8, 2008, thinking it would go unnoticed because of the Olympics, and Russia would not dare respond…
Leonid Reshetnikov
There’s nothing surprising here; it’s a typical US Special Services/military job.
I think they mainly want to save their country in its role of Master of the Universe, which they are losing. They feel their weakness better than we do, aware that most countries no longer want to continue as obedient stooges, either morally, or spiritually, or politically.
Now they have the only one option – hit the enemy to show their force – maybe he will back off. This would start with removing our president….
Andrey Afanasyev: Some are even talking about assassination…
Leonid Reshetnikov: The Central Intelligence Agency specializes in assassination. They’ve been practicing it for decades, assassinating leaders around the world. That’s why it would be naïve to think that they’re not planning to do the same with Vladimir Putin: if they can’t remove him from power they will assassinate him. The second goal is to blockade Russia, involve it in various conflicts. Unlike when Turkey shot down a Russian plane, they think we would take the bait. The policy in Syria is the same: You have to respond.
We should have no illusions. Today’s United States of America is interested only in one thing – destroying Russia as a civilizational, geopolitical, military and political rival — as well as an economic rival, with its treasure trove of resources.
Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour leadership battle in Britain is a victory for decency and for political integrity. It is also a blow at a British establishment that has become ossified and out of touch.
Whilst the war in Syria, Brexit and the American election have been the biggest news items of the summer, there’s been an election in Britain that ought to raise a combination of hope, fear and eyebrows. The Labour party have spent the last few months tearing themselves to bits over the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn is unique in the world of electoral politics. He is for all intents and purposes, a highly consistent man, a principled man, an ideologically unambiguous man, an honest man and a decent man. He entered Parliament in 1983 and made a career as a member of the Bennite left wing of the Labour party. His positions are that of classic left-wing Labourism: he is anti-war, he is pro nationalisation of industries, generally in favour of wealth distribution and an expansion of public services. Like his policies or hate them, he’s never hidden them. Jeremy Corbyn does what he says on the tin.
Therefore one would think that any challenge to Corbyn’s leadership would be ideologically based. On the surface, this is what the leadership race was: a fight for the heart and soul of the Labour party. Was Labour going to be a democratic socialist party or a Blairite party which in effect was a neo-liberal and ultra-hawkish party?
The people have clearly had enough of Blairism and the Diet Blairism of his immediate two successors. But the election sadly was not fought on this basis, demonstrating that a Labour party once famous for serious, impassioned and at times long winded debates may have found its soul but lost its conscience.
Owen Smith himself was something of a stand-in as no true believing Blarite ended up having the guts to enter the race. Smith and Corbyn actually agreed on more than they disagreed on with the exception of Smith being a die-hard Europeanist and Corbyn stating that the Brexit vote must be respected. The Blarites had conceded the ideological battle to Corbyn’s classical British socialism before the election even began, and instead resorted to personal attacks on one of the few nice people in modern politics.
The soft spoken and gentle Corbyn was called a bully; the long-time anti-fascist and anti-racist champion was called anti-Semitic; the veteran anti-war campaigner was painted as some sorted of traitor; the man whose economic policies are similar to those of latter day American icon Bernie Sanders and of many parties which are sweeping southern Europe and beyond was painted as some sort of neo-Stalinist; and one of the few honest men left in politics was called unelectable.
The Blairites used to a fault every dirty trick in the book to discredit a man who is beyond corruption.
It remains to be seen whether Labour can remain united. There is a possibility that those on the right of the party may form a new neo-Liberal bloc, whilst Corbyn will consolidate around socialists.
But more importantly, it does just beg the question: is the four party system which has emerged in Russia something Britain and others could learn from?
My previous articles and interview on RT during the recent State Duma elections praised the diversity of ideas being debated in the Duma. The Duma has a Communist party on the left, A Fair Russia on the centre-left, and United Russia and the LDPR on the centre right (though to be fair many of United Russia’s and the LDPR’s economic policies are far to the left of those of most European conservative parties).
Perhaps in order to better reflect the ideological diversity of the British people a new British parliament could have the following: a Corbyn led left-wing party, a Liberal party which can remain a safe place for the Blairites to regroup, a centre-right Conservative party that can campaign for Diet Brexit, and a right wing UKIP campaigning for a ‘hard Brexit’?
On paper it sounds like a fairly good idea, but the health of Britain’s parties is not good.
UKIP having won the battle for Brexit seem to be losing the war, and the party may well disintegrate unless there’s a big post-Brexit upheaval. The Liberal Democrats are something of a rudderless ship with little presence in Parliament. The Conservative party, once described by Benjamin Disraeli as ‘an organised hypocrisy’, is fast living up to that reputation, whilst despite Corbyn’s consistency the Parliamentary Labour Party as a whole appears to be something of a disorganised hypocrisy.
So whilst the British party political system has seen days of better functionality, Corbyn’s victory is a victory less for socialism than for honesty.
It’s nice to see a decent man win. It doesn’t happen very often.
Washington’s regime change machinery has for the time being succeeded in removing an important link in the alliance of large emerging nations by railroading through a Senate impeachment of the duly elected President, Dilma Rousseff.
On August 31 her Vice President Michel Temer was sworn in as President. In his first speech as president, the cynical Temer called for a government of “national salvation,” asking for the trust of the Brazilian people. He indicated plans to reform, and has also signaled his intention to overhaul the pension system and labor laws, and cut public spending, all themes beloved of Wall Street banks, of the International Monetary Fund and their Washington Consensus. Now after less than three weeks at the job, Temer has unveiled plans for wholesale privatization of Brazil’s crown jewels, starting with oil. The planned Wall Street rape of Brazil is about to begin.
It’s important to keep in mind that elected President Rousseff was not convicted or even formally charged with any concrete act of corruption, even though the pro-oligarchy mainstream Brazil media, led by O’Globo Group of the billionaire Roberto Irineu Marinho, ran a media defamation campaign creating the basis to railroad Rousseff into formal impeachment before the Senate. The shift took place after the opposition PMDB party of Temer on March 29 broke their coalition with Rousseff’s Workers’ Party, as accusations of Petrobras-linked corruption were made against Rousseff and former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
On August 31, 61 Senators voted to remove her while 20 voted against removal. The formal charge was “manipulation of the state budget” before the 2014 elections to hide the size of the deficit. She vehemently denies the charge. Indeed, the Senate issued its own expert report that concluded there was “no indication of direct or indirect action by Dilma” in any illegal budgetary maneuvers. According to the Associated Press, “Independent auditors hired by Brazil’s Senate said in a report released Monday that suspended President Dilma Rousseff didn’t engage in the creative accounting she was charged with at her impeachmenttrial.” Under an honest system that would have ended the impeachment then and there. Not in Brazil.
In effect, she was impeached for the dramatic decline in the Brazilian economy, a decline deliberately pushed along as US credit rating agencies downgraded Brazilian debt, and international and mainstream Brazilian media kept the Petrobras corruption allegations in the spotlight. Importantly, the Senate did not ban her from office for 8 years as Washington had hoped, and she has promised an electoral return. The Washington-steered Temer has until end of 2018 to deliver Brazil to Temer’s foreign masters before his term legally ends.
Notably, Temer himself was accused of corruption in the Petrobras state oil company investigations. He reportedly asked the then-head of the transportation unit of Petróleo Brasileiro SA in 2012 to arrange illegal campaign contributions to Temer’s party which was running a Washington-backed campaign to oust Rousseff’s Workers’ Party. Then this June, only days into his serving as acting president, two of Temer’s own chosen ministers, including the Minister of Transparency, were forced to resign in response to allegations that they sought to subvert the probe into massive graft at Petrobras.
One of the two, Temer’s extremely close ally Romero Jucá, was caught on tape plotting Dilma’s impeachment as a way to shut down the ongoing Petrobras corruption investigation, as well as indicating that Brazil’s military, the media, and the courts were all participants in the impeachment plotting.
In brief, the removal of Dilma Rousseff and her Workers’ Party after 13 years in Brazil’s leadership was a new form of Color Revolution from Washington, one we might call a judicial coup by corrupt judges and congressmen. Of the 594 members of the Congress, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported, “318 are under investigation or face charges” while their target, President Rousseff, “herself faces no allegation of financial impropriety.”
The day after the first Lower House impeachment vote in April, a leading member of Temer’s PSDP party, Senator Aloysio Nunes, went to Washington, in a mission organized by former Bill Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s lobbying firm, Albright Stonebridge Group. Nunes, as president of the Brazilian Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly advocated that Brazil once again move closer to an alliance with the US and UK.
Madeline Albright, a Director of the leading US think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations, is also chair of the prime US Government “Color Revolution” NGO, the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Nothing fishy here, or? Nunes reportedly went to Washington to rally backing for Temer and the unfolding judicial coup against Rousseff.
A key player from the side of Washington, Rousseff’s de facto political executioner, was, once again, Vice President Joe Biden, the “Dick Cheney” dirty operator-in-chief in the Obama Administration.
Biden’s fateful Brazil trip
In May, 2013, US Vice President Joe Biden made a fateful visit to Brazil to meet with President Rousseff. In January 2011 Rousseff had succeeded her Workers’ Party mentor, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, or Lula, who constitutionally was limited to two consecutive terms. Biden went to Brazil to discuss oil with the new President. Relations between Lula and Washington had chilled as Lula backed Iran against US sanctions and came economically closer to China.
In late 2007 Petrobras had discovered what was estimated to be a mammoth new basin of high-quality oil on the Brazilian Continental Shelf offshore in the Santos Basin. In total the Brazil Continental Shelf could contain over 100 billion barrels of oil, transforming the country into a major world oil and gas power, something Exxon and Chevron, the US oil giants wanted tocontrol.
In 2009, according to leaked US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks, the US Consulate in Rio wrote that Exxon and Chevron were trying in vain to alter a law advanced by Rousseff’s mentor and predecessor in her Brazilian Workers’ Party , President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva. That 2009 law made the state-owned Petrobras chief operator of all offshore oilblocs. Washington and the US oil giants were not at all pleased at losing control over potentially the largest new world oil discovery in decades.
Lula had not only pushed ExxonMobil and Chevron out of the controlling position in favor of the state-owned Petrobras, but he also opened Brazilian oil exploration to the Chinese, since 2009 a core member of the BRICS developing nations with Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.
In December, 2010 in one of his last acts as President, Lula oversaw signing of a deal between the Brazilian-Spanish energy company Repsol and China’s state-owned Sinopec. Sinopec formed a joint venture, Repsol Sinopec Brasil, investing more than $7.1 billion towards Repsol Brazil. Already in 2005 Lula had approved formation of Sinopec International Petroleum Service of Brazil Ltd as part of a new strategic alliance between China and Brazil.
In 2012 in a joint exploration drilling, Repsol Sinopec Brasil, Norway’s Statoil and Petrobras made a major new discovery in Pão de Açúcar, the third in block BM-C-33, which includes the Seat and Gávea, the latter one of the world’s 10 largest discoveries in 2011. USA and British oil majors were nowhere to be seen.
Biden’s task was to sound out Lula’s successor, Rousseff, about reversing that exclusion of US major oil companies in favor of the Chinese. Biden also met with leading energy companies in Brazil including Petrobras.
While little was publicly said, Rousseff refused to reverse the 2009 oil law in a way that would be suitable to Biden, Washington and US oil majors. Days after Biden’s visit came the Snowden NSA revelations that the US had also spied on Rousseff and top officials of Petrobras. She was livid and denounced the Obama Administration that September before the UN General Assembly for violating international law. She cancelled a planned Washington visit in protest. After that, US-Brazil relations took a dive.
After his May 2013 talks with Rousseff, Biden clearly gave her the kiss of death.
Before Biden’s May 2013 visit Dilma Rousseff had 70% of popularity rating. Less than two weeks after Biden left Brazil, nationwide protests by a very well-organized group called Movimento Passe Livre, over a nominal 10 cent bus fare increase, brought the country virtually to a halt and turned very violent. The protests bore the hallmark of typical “Color Revolution” or Twitter social media destabilizations that seem to follow Biden wherever he makes a presence. Within weeks Rousseff’s popularity plummeted to 30%.
Washington had clearly sent a signal that Rousseff had to change course or face serious problems. The Washington regime change machine, including its entire array of financial warfare operations ranging from a leaked PwC audit of Petrobras to Wall Street credit rating agency Standard & Poors’ downgrade of Brazil public debt to junk in September 2015, went into full action to remove Rousseff, a key backer of the BRICS New Development Bank and of an independent national development strategy for Brazil.
Selling the Crown Jewels
The man who has now manipulated himself into the Presidency, the corrupt Michel Temer, worked as an informer for Washington the entire time. In documents released by Wikileaks, it was revealed that Temer was an informant to US intelligence since at least 2006, via telegrams to the US embassy in Brazil classified by the Embassy as “sensitive” and “for official use only.”
Washington’s man in Brazil, Temer, has lost no time appeasing his patrons in Wall Street. Even as acting President this May, Temer named Henrique Meirelles as Minister of Finance and Social Security. Meirelles, a Harvard-educated former President of the Brazilian central bank, was President of BankBoston in the USA until 1999, and was with that bank in 1985 when it was found guilty of failing to report $1.2 billion in illegal cash transfers with Swiss banks. Meirelles is now overseeing the planned selloff of Brazil’s “crown jewels” to international investors, a move that is intended to gravely undercut the power of the state in the economy. Another of Temer’s key economic advisers is Paulo Leme, former IMF economist and now Goldman Sachs Managing Director of Emerging Markets Research. Wall Street is in the middle of the Temer-led economic rape of Brazil.
On September 13, Temer’s government unveiled a massive privatization program with the cynically misleading comment, “It is clear the public sector cannot move forward alone on these projects. We are counting on the private sector.” He omitted to say the private sector he meant were his patrons.
Temer unveiled plans that would complete the country’s largest privatization in decades. Conveniently, the process us to be completed by end of 2018, just before Temer’s term must end. The influential US-Brazil Business Council detailed the privatization list on its website. The US-Brazil Business Council was founded forty years ago by Citigroup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemicals and other US multinationals.
Tenders for the first round of concessions will be issued before the end of this year. They will include privatization of four airports and two port terminals, all auctioned in the first quarter of 2017. Other concessions include five highways, one rail line, bidding on small oil blocks and a later round for large, mainly offshore, oil development blocks. As well the government will sell selected assets currently controlled by its Minerals Research Department plus six electric power distributors and three water treatmentfacilities.
The heart of his planned privatization are, not surprisingly, Joe Biden’s coveted state oil and gas companies along with chunks of the state Eletrobrás power company. Temer plans to get as much as $24 billion from the selloff. Fully $11 billion of the total are to come from sale of key oil and gas state holdings. Of course, when state assets such as huge oil and gas resources are sold off to foreign interests in what will clearly be a distress sale, it is a one-off deal. State oil and gas or electric power projects generate a continuing revenue stream many times any one-off privatization gains. Brazil’s economy is the ultimate loser in such privatization. Wall Street banks and multinationals are of course, as planned, the winner.
On September 19-21, according to the US-Brazil Business Council website, the Brazilian government’s key ministers for infrastructure including Minister Moreira Franco; Minister Fernando Bezerra Coelho Filho, Minister of Mines and Energy; and Minister Mauricio Quintella Lessa, Minister of Transport, Ports and Civil Aviation, will be in New York City to meet with Wall Street “infrastructure investors.”
This is Washington’s way, the way of the Wall Street Gods of Money, as I title one of my books. First, destroy any national leadership intent on genuine national development such as Dilma Rousseff. Replace them with a vassal regime willing to do anything for money, including selling the crown jewels of their own nation as people like Anatoli Chubais did in Russia in the 1990’s under Boris Yeltsin’s “shock therapy.” As reward for his behavior, Chubais today sits on the advisory board of JP MorganChase. What will Temer and associates get for their efforts remains to be seen. Washington for now has broken one of the BRICS that ultimately threaten her global hegemony. It is not likely to bring any lasting success if recent history is any guide.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Victory for Corbyn! The genie is now out of the bottle
Ecstatic screams and cheers broke out across the country as the news came through that Jeremy Corbyn has again won a decisive victory to become Labour leader, with an even bigger mandate than last September. 313,209 members voted for him, 61.8% of the vote, compared to 59.5% last year. His challenger Owen Smith, the “unity” candidate, got 193,229 votes, or 38.2% of the vote. The turnout was 77.6%, with 506,438 members and supporters taking part.
Corbyn won a majority over Smith in every category: members, registered supporters and trades union affiliates. He won the support of 59% of voting members (10 points higher than last year), 70% of registered supporters and 60% of affiliated supporters. This result constituted a ringing endorsement of Corbyn and a massive blow to Labour’s right wing.
The mass movement behind Corbyn
Let us remember that Corbyn’s victory today was in spite of a ferocious battle by the Establishment, inside and outside of the party, to unseat him. Everything was thrown at him in a bitter campaign. 130,000 new members were debarred from voting. Tens of thousands were suspended – and even expelled – to prevent them voting. Despite this, Corbyn increased his majority!
The right wing in the Parliamentary Party never accepted his first victory and immediately worked to overthrow his mandate. This campaign culminated in the right-wing coup of a few months ago, where 80% of Labour MPs voted for a motion of no confidence in him. They moved heaven and hell to get rid of him. But their efforts have now completely blown up in their faces.
The vote was no real surprise given the pro-Corbyn feelings in the rank and file. In the end, Owen Smith was a no-hoper. This demonstrates the weakness of the right wing within the Labour Party. They had lost control of the party with Corbyn’s victory, as hundreds of thousands joined the Labour Party to defend and support Corbyn. The party has almost tripled its membership since the May 2015 general election.
Corbyn has certainly strengthened his position within the party, especially amongst the new members. As one commentator stated, he has massive support like no other party leader in history. Such a victory must not be squandered but used to transform the Labour Party into a mass, fighting socialist party.
Unity – on what basis?
Of course, there have been immediate calls for the right wing PLP to unite behind Corbyn. All the local Labour Party meetings next month will certainly be pressing for this. There must be demands that the utter disloyalty of the PLP has to stop. It is the continual back-stabbing by right-wing MPs, who have been all over the media, which has undermined support for the party. These MPs must either accept the mandate given to Corbyn by the party or they must stand down.
It is clear that the right wing have suffered a massive blow. They have suffered a head-on car crash. Many right-wing MPs deliberately stayed away from the Labour Conference, knowing full well that they were in for a hiding to nothing. They are licking their wounds, even talking of “unity” and “listening”. Stephen Kinnock, who has been a vociferous opponent of Corbyn, sent him a text message of congratulations as “sweet as a razor”, to use the words of Dylan Thomas. A number will have seen how the wind is blowing and will now show “loyalty”. But in reality they will simply be biding their time. Some will return to the Shadow Cabinet. Others will refuse with a hungry smile. The right wing will never give up its hope of turning the tables. Clutching their heads, they talk of a new organisation being set up in the PLP – a “party within a party” – to guide and coordinate their actions. But they have had the stuffing knocked out of them.
The battles ahead
Of course, they have a massive problem: the Labour membership, which has decisively rejected Blairism and the policies of the right. They are very much looking for a real alternative, which they see in Jeremy Corbyn. It is very likely that the membership will continue to grow, meaning that the base for the right wing will continue to shrink. The boundary changes will open up selection conferences locally in which the right wing will be challenged. They will not be able to avoid this, despite pleas to Corbyn, who is in favour of democracy and the membership having its say. When this happens, all hell will be let loose. The idea that the right wing are going to roll over and accept this leftward shift is fantasy.
As the Financial Times, gritting its teeth, commented: “Jeremy Corbyn has returned as leader of Labour, tightening the grip of the hard left over one of Britain’s oldest political parties.” The ruling class is alarmed at this advance of the left and will do whatever they can to stop it.
The right wing is a Fifth Column of big business within Labour. They are careerists like their counterparts in the capitalist parties. They will jump ship when the time comes. Britain is heading into unchartered waters. The Tories, although repackaged, are heading for a bust up over the Brexit negotiations. The splits in the Tory Cabinet can already be seen. This is simply a foretaste. With a new economic crisis, the scene will be set for a general election showdown. At that point, the capitalist Establishment may call on the right wing in the Labour Party to split to prevent Corbyn coming to power.
Whatever the talk of “unity”, the divisions between the members and the right wing PLP are unbridgeable. The fight to democratise the party must go hand in hand with the fight for bold socialist policies to answer the crisis of capitalism.
We are in interesting times. The victory for Corbyn means that the genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back. The fight is now on to change society.
Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem on Saturday addressed the 71 session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York.
Below is the full text of the speech:
President of the seventy-first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
I would like to congratulate you and your friendly country, Fiji, on your election as President of the present session of the United Nations’ General Assembly, I wish you all success during presidency, which you have promised would be one “for the whole house.” Such a promise, if kept, would strengthen the neutral role of the President of the General Assembly and shed a bright light on the facts that some are trying to conceal.
Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
As we meet once again, our world is going through a grave and dangerous period. Terrorism, which we have cautioned against repeatedly from this very rostrum, has continued to grow and gain ground, claiming the lives of more innocent people and causing death and destruction as it rages unabated across the world. The blood of Syrians was not enough to quench its thirst. It had to go after the citizens of many other countries, including those that have supported and sponsored it. These innocent people are now paying for the mistakes of their governments, which have ignored the interests of their people and adopted shortsighted policies.
For more than five years, the Syrian people, no matter their affiliations, have paid dearly for the crimes of terrorists who have shed the blood of Syrians and undermined their security, stability, and livelihoods. Terrorism has spared no one, targeting even schools, universities, hospitals, places of worship and infrastructure.
Everyone knows full well that terrorism would not have spread through my country if it hadn’t been for the external support of well-known countries. It is no longer a secret that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have played a part in this, promoting their Wahhabist Takfirist ideology and their death fatwas that have nothing to do with Islam. They have bragged about supporting terrorism in every way, sending into Syria thousands of mercenaries, equipped with the most sophisticated weapons. Meanwhile, Turkey has opened its border to let in tens of thousands of terrorists from all around the world and has provided them with logistical support and training camps under the supervision of Turkish and Western intelligence. It has even supplied these terrorists with direct military support, as was the case in Idlib, Aleppo, and rural Lattakia.
I would like to refer you to a study published seven months ago by a German institute, the Firil Center for Studies. According to the study, more than 360,000 foreign terrorists from 83 countries have entered Syria since April 2011. By the end of 2015, the Syrian Army was able to kill 95,000 of those, while 120,000 returned home or travelled to other countries.
We, in Syria, are combating terrorism on behalf of the whole of the world. Every time the Syrian Army kills another foreign terrorist, it spears the lives of many innocent people who could have died in a terrorist act carried out by the same terrorist upon returning to his country. Anyone who seeks to distort this fact must be held responsible for the spread of terrorism and the increasing numbers of victims. Our valiant Army deserves to be commended and supported. It must never be the target of schemes and lies.
Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
The terrorist campaign against my country is taking place in full view of a polarized world; There are those who have chosen to support international law and the principles of the Charter, while others have decided to turn a blind eye to the truth and to support, finance and arm terrorists, under false pretexts that depart from logic and reason. They choose, for example, to refer to these terrorists as “moderate armed opposition,” even though there is irrefutable evidence that these groups have committed against Syrians crimes and massacres that are no less barbaric than those of ISIL or Al-Qaida. Some consider people who take up arms against the state and its citizens “illegitimate opposition” as long as they are in Syria, while the exact same people, on any other day and in another country, would be considered terrorists, or at least outlaws.
Despite all of this, all Syrians; the people, the army and the government, will not relent in their fight against terrorism. They are determined, more than ever before, to eliminate terrorism wherever it exists in their country and to rebuild a better Syria, because they are well aware that their homeland will cease to exist if the terrorists and their backers emerge victorious.
Our belief in victory is even greater now that the Syrian Arab Army is making great strides in its war against terrorism, with the support of the true friends of the Syrian people, notable the Russian Federation, Iran, and the Lebanese national resistance. Such support has helped strengthen the resilience of Syrians and alleviate their suffering. We truly hope that other countries will wake up and realize, before it is too late, the danger that threatens us all.
We have always welcomed all the international efforts to counter terrorism in Syria, but we stress once again the need to coordinate such efforts with the government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Syrian Arab Army that has been combating terrorism on the ground for more than five years. Without such coordination, any action would be considered a breach of sovereignty, a flagrant interference, and a violation of the principles and purposes of the Charter. Without such coordination, any action will fall short of achieving real results and will even make matters worse.
In this regard, the Syrian government condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack launched by American warplanes on a Syrian Army site in the vicinity of the Deir Ezzor Airport on 17 September, which allowed ISIL to gain control of the site. The Syrian government holds the United States fully responsible for this aggression, because facts show that it was an intentional attack, and not an error, even if the United States claims otherwise. This cowardly aggression clearly proves that the US and its allies are complicit with ISIL and other terrorist armed organizations.
We also reiterate our condemnation of Turkish incursion into Syrian territories under the pretext of countering terrorism. This is a flagrant aggression and must be stopped immediately. Terrorism cannot be fought by replacing one terrorist organization with another. One cannot but wonder: how can a state that has been the main point of entry for terrorists and weapons into Syria claim to be fighting terrorism?! How can there be genuine and effective international counter-terrorism cooperation while relevant Security Council resolutions remain dead letter?
Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Since the onset of the crisis in 2011, the Syrian government has declared that any solution must follow two parallel tacks; counter-terrorism track and a political track through an intra-Syrian dialogue that allows Syrians to determine the future of their country without foreign interference. All solutions dictated from the outside are categorically rejected by the Syrian people. Likewise, any political solution will not succeed in the absence of the necessary foundations and conditions for its implementation, including intensified counter-terrorism efforts and progress in the national reconciliation process, which has proven successful in a number of areas around Syria.
Despite all the hurdles created by regional and western states that decide on behalf of the self-proclaimed “Syrian opposition” we have always been open to a political track that would stem the bloodshed and end the prolonged suffering of the Syrians. We reiterate our commitment to move forward with the Geneva track under the auspices of the United Nations.
We recall our constructive position regarding the political solution. Such a solution must be based on respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria and the unity of its people. It should begin by establishing a government of a national unity comprising representatives from the government and the opposition, in all its factions, and tasked with creating a constitution drafting committee. Once the new constitution is approved by Syrians through a referendum, parliamentary elections would follow and a new government would be formed under the new constitution.
Mr. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is truly regrettable that some are exploiting the humanitarian tragedy and suffering of Syrians, especially in terrorist-held areas, and politicizing such suffering to achieve certain goals that have nothing to do with humanitarian principles or the interest of Syrians themselves. Some countries continue to shed crocodile tears over the situation of Syrians in some areas, accusing the Syrian government of employing a policy of sieges and starvation. All the while, these same countries continue to support and arm the terrorists that besiege civilians in these areas from the inside and use them as human shields and prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid or confiscate it.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: no one is more committed than the Syrian government to ending the suffering of the Syrians and providing them with a life of dignity wherever they may be end without exception. This is a duty and not a favor. We will spare no effort to that end, including cooperation with the United Nations, despite all the difficulties we face as a result of the systematic destruction by externally-supported terrorist organizations, and despite the unilateral coercive economic and financial measures imposed on the Syrian people by the same parties that falsely claim to have the interests of Syrians in mind. Such unilateral measures have adversely affected many vital sectors, including health, education and energy.
Mrs. President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Syria is confronting mercenary terrorists on its territory today, but it has long confronted a different kind of terrorism; the terrorism of Israel that has occupied a precious part of our land in the Syrian Golan since 4 June 1967. Our Syria Arab people in the Occupied Golan continue to suffer as a result of Israel’s oppressive and aggressive practices. These practices are no longer confined to the Occupied Golan, and are currently affecting the security and life of Syrians in the southern part of the country. Israel is intervening militarily to assist in every way the terrorist organizations operating in that area.
Syria calls on the international community to put an effective end to all these practices and to compel Israel to implement relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly resolution 497 on the Occupied Syrian Golan. It should also compel Israel to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their inalienable rights, including the establishment of their independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of Palestine refugees to their land, in accordance with internationally-recognized resolutions.
Syria reaffirms that Israel’s that Israel’s aggressive policies don not only threaten Syria but the whole region, especially given Israel’s nuclear arsenal. We have stressed time and again the need to compel Israel to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and other treaties on WMDs, and to subject its nuclear installations to the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Syria stresses the right of states to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. We have always called for creating a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. In fact, we have efficiently and responsibly eliminated all chemical weapons in Syria, in cooperation with the Joint Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations. In this regard, Syria reiterates its readiness to continue its cooperation with the Joint Investigation Mechanism (JIM), as well as to continue the Syrian relevant investigation.
Mr. President,
We can congratulate Cuba and Iran reaching agreements to lift the embargo imposed on them and we look forward to their implementation. We renew our call for removing the illegal economic measures imposed on the Syrian people and on other independent peoples in the world, notably the peoples of the DPRK, Venezuela and Belarus.
In closing, we wish you and your people lasting security and prosperity. We hope that our organization will be able to regain the trust of the people, by upholding the provisions of the Charter, which calls for respecting the sovereignty and independence of member states and ensuring non-interference in their internal affairs. This principle, if implemented, would lay the foundations for genuine and fair relations among nations, after the greed and arrogance of some have shaken them to their core.
Before the externally-orchestrated dirty war on Syria started with the externally-orchestrated “Arab Spring” psy op; before the “peaceful protestors” shot the unarmed Syrian security forces; and before the West armed, trained and funded the international mercenary cannibals who loot, rape, and plunder; Syria was an oasis of civilization surrounded by imperial puppet states.
Syria was prosperous, with a growing economy (link). It had food sovereignty, with a “strategic” stock of millions of tons of high quality wheat , not the “Franken-food” bio-tech variety; it had a strong central bank with no usurious IMF loans; it had a popular, reformer President; it had a mostly well-educated, secular, pluralist, forward-looking population; and it was the fourth safest country in the world.
After almost six years of illegal war launched by some of the most militarily advanced countries, and years of illegal sanctions imposed by these same criminal governments – including Canada’s puppet government – Syria is still standing strong. It still has a popular, elected President and government. And it is still a beacon of civilization.
Despite the collective punishment of sanctions and the terror of war, Syrians remain defiant. Arabi Shaher exemplified this defiance when he said,” Do whatever you like, this is our country; it will remain our country.” He, like many Syrians, sees through the lies. And his appraisal of the root cause of the war is openly shared by many Syrians: Israel.
Israel and its allies “benefit” from a balkanized and destroyed Syria. Even conflicting pipeline interests are subordinated by Israel’s perceived needs as presaged by the Oded Yinon plan. Syrians commonly report that Israel first and foremost, and its allies, are the number one agents driving the current holocaust. These interests are said to subordinate the “oil” interests. Same in Iraq.
Not surprisingly, Syria, ranked among the top five countries in terms of safety before the war, is now a war zone on about 2,000 fronts, but life goes on for all Syrians.
Despite the Western assaults on Syria, Syria still provides free health care and schooling for all in government –controlled areas, even as terrorists teach children to be “child soldiers”, and to adopt the degenerate Wahhabi ideology that violently excludes all other ideologies and religions.
All of the violence, including the daily exposure to bombings, is currently being “normalized”. Outsiders report that when a mortar bomb strikes nearby, Syrian pedestrians barely notice, and continue on their way. The trauma of the war will present challenges for years to come.
Despite, or maybe because of its challenges, Syria treats all of its inhabitants – regardless of their country of origin – as Syrians.
“Wesam”, a man born to Palestinian refugees, explains that Palestinian refugees have the same rights as Syrians. They can buy a home, they can buy land, and they can legally work in Syria. In contrast, he explains that Palestinian refugees have no rights in neighbouring Lebanon; they cannot work legally, and they cannot buy a home outside of the refugee camp.
And so life goes on in Syria. The West is doing everything that it can to change this – economic sanctions, mercenary terrorists, bombing grain silos, bombing Syrian Arab Army (SAA) positions, disinformation warfare – but it isn’t working.
Damascus, one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world, is strong. Observers mistakenly thought that the capital would fall within months, but it hasn’t happened yet, and it is unlikely to happen at all.
Syria has strong institutions, a strong army, and strong allies. It also has a strong civilizing core. Syria’s victory will be everyone’s victory.
In the course of a recent operation to liberate a terrorist-held enclave in northern Latakia, Syrian Army troops discovered a ‘manual for terrorists’. Printed in Turkey, the book teaches jihadis “the proper conduct of war on foreign soil,” up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.
The manual, printed in Arabic and called ‘Zad al-Mujahed’ (roughly, ‘Fruits for the work of God’s Warriors’) was published in Istanbul, with its publishers making no attempt to even try to hide the book’s origins. It features the logo of the Istanbul-based Guraba publishing company, contact information, and even an ISBN, inside its front cover.
Speaking to Sputnik Arabic, the Syrian Army soldier who discovered the book said that it was filled with hatred and calls to war against people who don’t share jihadists’ faith, as well as instructions on what must be done with “enemies and their property.”
Sputnik Arabic Zad Al-Mujahed
“The book describes how to properly burn cities captured by jihadi fighters, how to cut down all the trees, destroy all life, how to execute prisoners in the correct manner,” the soldier explained.
Sputnik Arabic Zad Al-Mujahed
“The book says that jihadis have a right to marry their captives; the book even mentions the aspect of the possible use of nuclear weapons,” he added.
The book is banned in Syria for its radical content, and repeated calls to violence and terror. For this reason, Sputnik Arabic decided not to quote it directly. Still, it published photos, republished here, showing the cover and details on the book’s publisher. It remains unclear how many copies of this book were found.
Syrian authorities are extremely sensitive about published materials which could be seen to inspire sectarian conflict. Before it was engulfed in war in 2011, Syria was known as a secular, multicultural and multiethnic nation with a large number of religious minorities. Since then, many of these minorities have been threatened with enslavement or extermination by homegrown and foreign-sponsored radical Islamist terrorists, including Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra and a collection of affiliated groups.
There has been an adverse trend in the food and agriculture sector in recent times with the control of seeds and chemical inputs being consolidated through various proposed mergers. If these mergers go through, it would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector. Over the past couple of decades, there has already been a restriction of choice with the squeezing out of competitors, resulting in higher costs for farmers, who are increasingly reliant on corporate seeds (and their chemical inputs).
Big agribusiness players like Monsanto rely on massive taxpayer handouts to keep their business models on track; highly profitable models that have immense social, health and environmental costs to be paid for by the public. Across the globe healthy, sustainable agriculture has been uprooted and transformed to suit the profit margins of transnational agribusiness concerns. The major players in the global agribusiness sector fuel a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production that result in numerous negative outcomes for both farmers and consumers alike (listed here: 4th paragraph from the end).
Protest Movement, Vancouver
Aside from the domination of the market being a cause for concern, we should also be worried about a food system controlled by companies that have a history (see this and this) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in activities that might be considered as constituting crimes against humanity. If we continue to hand over the control of society’s most important infrastructure – food and agriculture – to these wealthy private interests, what will the future look like?
There is no need to engage in idle speculation. Foods based on CRISPR (a gene-editing technology for which Monsanto has just acquired a non-exclusive global licensing agreement for use) and synthetic biology are already entering the market without regulation or proper health or environmental assessments. And we can expect many more unregulatedGM technologies to influence the nature of our food and flood the commercial market.
Despite nice sounding rhetoric by company spokespersons about the humanitarian motives behind these endeavours, the bottom line is patents and profit. And despite nice sounding rhetoric about the precision of the techniques involved, these technologies pose health and environmental risks. Moreover, CRIPRS technology could be used to create genes drives and terminator seed traits tools could be used for unscrupulous political and commercial ends.
There could well be severe social and economic consequences too. The impacts of synthetic biology (another sector dominated by a handful of private interests) on farmers in the Global South could result in a bio-economy of landlessness and hunger. Readers are urged to read this report which outlines the effects on farming, farmers and rural economies: synthetic biology has the potential to undermine livelihoods and would mean a shift to narrower range of export-oriented mono-cropping to produce biomass for synbio processes that place stress on water resources and food security in the exporting countries.
Aside from these social, health and environmental implications, can we trust private entities like Monsanto (or Bayer) to use these powerful (potentially bio-weapon) technologies responsibly? Given Monsanto’s long history of cover-ups and duplicity, trust took the last train out a long time ago. Moreover, the legalities of existing frameworks appear to mean little to certain companies: see here what Vandana Shiva says about the illegality of Monsanto’s enterprise in India. National laws that exist to protect the public interest are little more than mere hurdles to be got around by lobbyists, lawyers and political pressure. So what can be done?
Agroecology is a force for grass-root rural change that would be independent from the cartel of powerful biotech/agribusiness companies. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritises the needs of farmers and consumers. It represents an alternative to corporate-controlled agriculture.
However, as much as people and communities strive to become independent from unscrupulous corporate concerns and as much as localised food systems try to extricate themselves from the impacts of rigged global trade and markets, there also has to be a concerted effort to roll back corporate power and challenge what it is doing to our food. These corporations will not just go away because people eat organic or choose agroecology.
The extremely wealthy interests behind these corporations do their level best to displace or dismantle alternative models of production – whether agroecology, organic, public sector agriculture systems or anything that exists independently from them – and replace them with ones that serve their needs. Look no further than attempts attempts to undermine indigenous edible oils processing in India, for instance. Look no further than the ‘mustard seed crisis‘ in India in 1998. Or look no further than how transnational biotech helped fuel and then benefit from the destruction of Ethiopia’s traditional agrarian economy.
Whether it’s on the back of US-backed coups (Ukraine), military conflicts (Iraq), ‘structural adjustment’ (Africa) or slanted trade deals (India), transnational agribusiness is driving a global agenda to suit its interests and eradicate impediments to profit.
To underline this point, let’s turn to what Michel Chossudovsky says in his 1997 book ‘The Globalization of Poverty’. He argues that economies are:
“opened up through the concurrent displacement of a pre-existing productive system. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy or obliged to produce for a global distributor, state enterprises are privatised or closed down, independent agricultural producers are impoverished.” (p.16)
Increasing profit and shareholder dividends are the bottom line. And it doesn’t matter how much devastation ensues or how unsustainable their business model is, ‘crisis management’ and ‘innovation’ fuel the corporate-controlled treadmill they seek to impose.
As long as the domination of the food system by powerful private interests is regarded as legitimate and as long as their hijack of governments, trade bodies and trade deals, regulatory agencies and universities is deemed normal or is unchallenged in the sham ‘liberal democracies’ they operate within, we are destined for a future of more contaminated food, ill health, degraded environments and an agriculture displaced and uprooted for the benefit of self-interest.
The problems associated with the food system cannot be dealt with on a single-issue basis: it is not just about the labelling of GM foods; it’s not just about the impacts of Monsanto’s Roundup; it’s not just about Monsanto (or Bayer) as a company; and it’s not just about engaging in endless debates with corporate shills about the science of GMOs.
Despite the promise of the Green Revolution, hundreds of millions still go to bed hungry, food has become denutrified, functioning rural economies have been destroyed, diseases have spiked in correlation with the increase in use of pesticides and GMOs, soil has been eroded or degraded, diets are less diverse, global food security has been undermined and access to food is determined by manipulated international markets and speculation – not supply and demand.
Food and agriculture have become wedded to power structures that have created food surplus and food deficit areas and have restructured indigenous agriculture across the world and tied it to an international system of trade based on export-oriented mono-cropping, commodity production for a manipulated and volatile international market and indebtedness to international financial institutions.
The problem is the system of international capitalism that is driving a globalised system of bad food and poor health, the destruction of healthy, sustainable agriculture and systemic, half-baked attack on both groups and individuals who oppose these processes.
At the very least, there should be full public control over all GMO/synthetic biology production and research. And if we are serious about reining in the power of profiteering corporations over food – our most basic and essential infrastructure – they should be placed under democratic ownership and control.
In finishing, let us turn to Ghiselle Karim who at the end of her insightful article says:
… we demand that it is our basic human right to protect our food supply… [food] would be planned to meet human need, not corporate greed. We have hunger not because there is not enough food, but rather because it is not distributed equally. The core of the problem is not a shortage of food, but capitalism!
[Fort Russ News has confirmed the following from various trusted sources on the ground, monitoring the events closely. These were compared to a number of breaking stories coming from AMN, SANA, Fars, and the SAA’s official social-networking. We have also provided background information covering the several days before, bringing readers up-to-date from the end of the US-Russia ceasefire through the ongoing maneuvers leading up to the major pre-dawn offensive that is still underway. We have pulled together about nine different pieces of reportage and present them in a comprehensive manner, in chronological order. We have also given some analysis.]
COMPLETE REPORT
September 24th – Aleppo, Syria – Pre-dawn around 4 am, the Syrian Arab Army and allied forces launched the largest phase of an all out offensive in Aleppo, which was declared on September 22nd. At the time of publication, this is an ongoing offensive in the form of a three pronged attack. The map below shows us the starting points of the three pronged attack – in boxes.
Figure 1
Today’s major attack began from three directions indicated above. It is the culmination of the last 48 hours of fighting in the aftermath of the failed ceasefire. It is reported that the Syrian Arab Army had observed the movement of jihadist reserves in the encirclement, and these positions were the result of tactical victories in the last two days. We will give some background in the following section on how the pieces came to be positioned in this way.
This phase of the offensive was delayed by up to 20 hours for reasons explained in the below section of this report ‘The Last 48 Hours’.
This is the best advantage for the SAA to have for a battle of this type, for they can attack from many direction and the enemy is handicapped in this regard.
Between 45k to 70k Syrian soldiers and their allies are reportedly involved around Aleppo and 20k to 25k terrorists are inside the city. We are unable at this time to narrow the numbers down more precisely.These moves are all just the beginning of a series of coordinated attacks which, we are cautious to say, may determine the outcome of this conflict. Significant is that Lavrov has taken the future possibility of unilateral ceasefires off the table. These were unilateral as it was revealed in public statements and some leaked elements of the ceasefire agreement, because Al-Nusra, not a party to the ceasefire, was included in the areas under protection of the ceasefire based on the US’s claim that they were trying to ‘separate’ the moderates from Al-Nusra. Lay critics and citizen-activists not familiar with what was important for Russia and Syria for the ceasefires, had pointed at that the cessation of hostilities came at the same time in reports published, including our own, that victory was in sight.
It is clear now that the Russians used the ceasefire talks and the documents produced as a result, to prove to the international community, and for posterity, that the US could not distinguish between, or separate out, ‘moderate rebels’ from the Al-Nusra terrorist group.
At the present time there seems to be little horizontal movement on the diplomatic front for the US, which leads us to say with some degree of certitude that another diplomatic maneuver is not going to stop this all out fight.
What we may find is the US directly assisting the terrorist units, which it admits are inseparable or indistinguishable from the apparently fictional ‘moderate rebels’, dropping supplies by air, which will raise the question of the extent to which Syria and Russia will respond.
*
Focusing now back on the logistics of this offensive, we will first examine the southern offensive.
At about 8am this morning, the pre-dawn attack resulted in some notable gains. The SAA and allied forces launched an assault in strategically important sectors in southern Aleppo. This was confirmed by the following announcement from AMN
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), backed by Hezbollah and Liwaa Al-Quds (Palestinian paramilitary), launched a new assault at the 1070 Al-Hamdaniyah Housing Project in southern Aleppo on Saturday, striking the southern sector of this district that is controlled by Jaysh Al-Fateh (Army of Conquest).Led by the Republican Guard and 4th Mechanized Division, the Syrian Arab Army and their allies stormed the southern sector of the 1070 Housing Project and the nearby Hikmah Hill, resulting in a fierce battle that is still ongoing.According to a military source in Aleppo city, the Syrian Armed Forces and their allies are attempting to break-through Jaysh Al-Fateh’s final line of defense at the 1070 Housing Project, while a large Hezbollah unit attacks the Qarassi axis.
With this had, in the coming days a spearhead attack will make use of a vanguard pushing from a southerly direction. See this map below:
Figure 2 – proposed maneuver for 9-26
This map above, Figure 2, corresponds to the lower-most box on the south of the map in Figure 1, at the top
These moves will be possible based upon positions already held and reinforced from around September 10th or 11th, and this mornings gains. Two groups, one to the south-east and the other to the south-west of the Sheikh Saeed district, will push towards the center, joining in that district, routing terrorist groups before they can manage to reform their line in the aftermath of the aerial bombardment previously. This will likely be a combined assault by the SAA, Liwaa Al-Quds, with Hezbollah, and will involve the celebrated Tiger Forces.
*
Now let us turn to the eastern offensive. We know that the 106th Brigade of the Republican Guard, part of an elite mechanized division making up 25,000 fighting men, is on the eastern part waiting to storm, and it is possible the forward movement of their offensive has already begun at the time of publication.
The SAA began today’s eastern-most activity by stretching the reserves of jihadist in the circle very thin with artillery barrages, using the tactic of attrition before the vanguard storm. Again, we are expecting this attack of the Syrian Arab Army from eastern direction, or, this has already begun.
The 102nd and 106th Brigade of Republican Guard are confirmed as involved in the attack which may, at the time of publishing be underway.
*
Now looking at the northern offensive, we refer to the uppermost box at the north of the map, where that group launched their assault in the area shown in Figure 1. In this northern-most prong, the Handarat refugee camp was liberated by SAA forces backed by the Palestinian brigade, Liwaa Al-Quds. The entrance was liberated sometime afternoon, with conflicting reports. But after 4:00 pm today, total control was finally confirmed by spokesmen from Liwaa Al-Quds. This was reported by SANA and AMN. This includes strategically important hilltops, necessary for the assault to progress in a southerly direction.
Video: Liberation of Handarat –
This area northernmost in Figure 1, above, is shown at the top in the following, Figure 3.
Figure 3
Figure 3, however, represents the latter development of the northern offensive. In this, the group that took the Hamdarat refugee camp, they then shifted their attention to the “Shuqeif Industrial Area that is located right next to the Bureijj Quarries of northern Aleppo”, according to AMN.The Syrian Armed Forces and their allies were able to assert fire control over the Shuqeif Industrial Area after seizing the hilltops overlooking this part of northern AleppoThe last 48 hours leading up to today’s phase of the Aleppo offensive:Following the end of the ceasefire, Russian and Syrian air forces began to strike terrorist held areas. Kerry protested this in a public media spectacle, manipulating the public misconception that there was still a ceasefire in effect. The SAA unilaterally ended the ceasefire about half a day after its positions were intentionally hit by US forces acting in conjunction with ISIS. Kerry’s protests came the following day.
These air strikes were very effective, and created the possibility for the following tactical victories.
From the Syrian Arab Army’s facebook, on the morning of September 22nd, a telling message was given:
The regional military command in Aleppo announced the beginning of military operations in the Eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo.
The regional military operations’ command call on the fellow civilian citizens to keep away from the known buildings in which the terrorists use as hideouts and command centers.
The regional military command in Aleppo: There will be no legal liability, arresting or detention to any citizen who make it to an of the Syrian Arab Army’ checkpoints around the Eastern Neighborhood. We took all measures to welcome the civilians out of the Eastern Neighborhood, provide temporary residence and provide life aid for a dignified living.
The offer also include all gunmen who were deceived into holding arms against their Armed Forces, and want to surrender their arms to get back to their civil life.
Yesterday, September 23rd, as Al Masdar reported, “less than 24 hours after the announcement of the Aleppo offensive aimed at capturing the rebel-held districts of east Aleppo, government forces were able to secure the Ramousah-‘Amiriyah highway and its intersection following consistent advances around Al-Badawi mosque in ‘Amiriyah.
Preceding this advance were 8 intense hours of violent clashes on the Ramousah Bakery axis. This sensitive advance places the Syrian Army forces on the outskirts of Sukkari district, the militants’ administrative hub in the embattled city.
Moreover, government troops now have fire control over the jihadist forces in the aforementioned areas.
Notably, opposition forces suggested that Jabhat Fath Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra) is relocating many of its fighters from all jihadist-held Aleppo and massing them at Sukkari where they have imposed a curfew.
Meanwhile, Syrian helicopters dropped thousands of leaflets atop east Aleppo neighborhoods calling on militants to turn themselves in before it becomes too late.
The Syrian Army and its allies are expected to capture and fortify Sadkop at any time. Securing this region will enable its use as a launchpad for operations on Sukkari and Sheikh Sa’eed.
Whatever the future holds for east Aleppo, it incontestably doesn’t bode well for the jihadist forces- especially following the harrowing defeat at the artillery base.”
Then on September 23rd, right after noon the Syrian Arab Army facebook reported:
SyAAF and RuAF are conducting airstrikes against enemy targets in the Eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo. All the data about the targets were collected by Syrian Military Intelligence operatives inside enemy controlled territories and only high precision munition are being used to avoid/minimize unneeded damage.These airstrikes come hours after the regional military command in Aleppo announced the beginning of a military operation in the Eastern Neighborhoods.We told you constantly on this page that the terrorists who took the people of the Eastern neighborhoods as human shields and kept them hostages while shelled the Western neighborhoods terrorizing and killing civilians will be made an example of. The land operation haven’t started yet but its imminent; and their Sultan nor their masters will be able to save them then.
Later the same day, they translated a very interesting quote directly from Bashar al-Assad:
Commander in Chief president Bashar al-Assad answering a question of when Syria will be pacified to some degree that the Syrians who fled the war can return:<< If we look at it according to the internal Syrian factors, I would say it’s very soon, a few months, and I’m sure about that, I’m not exaggerating, but when you talk about it as part of a global conflict and a regional conflict, when you have many external factors that you don’t control, it’s going to drag on and no-one in this world can tell you when but the countries, the governments, the officials who support directly the terrorists. Only they know, because they know when they’re going to stop supporting those terrorists, and this is where the situation in Syria is going to be solved without any real obstacles. >>
This is a very big message directly from Assad, and lines up with most objective assessments of the present state of the failing US backed effort in Syria.Towards the end of the day on the 23rd, the SAA facebook gave an explanation as to why this phase of the offensive was delayed, citing humanitarian concerns:
A little inside info from Eastern Aleppo. What happened last night was great at all military levels; the armed forces did not launched a full scale operation yet despite that it was announced and here is the reason:
On Wednesday there was a meeting inside the Syrian regional command HQ in Aleppo and Major General Zaid al-Saleh the regional commander in Aleppo announced that the armed groups in the Eastern Neighborhoods will have until the end of September to drop their weapons and the Syrian nationals among them will have full amnesty.
Last night the Syrian regional command officially announced the beginning of its operation in Eastern Aleppo but also announced that all citizens who make it to an Syrian military checkpoint will not be legally liable, will not be detained and will not be arrested; they will be transported safely to a temporary housing where they will be provided medical care, and aid for a dignified living until their neighborhood is liberated and they can go back. That offer was extended to all Syrian nationals who were deceived into holding arms against their armed forces.
But that does not mean there will not be a military operation or military operations are ceased, we will keep the battle and tactical details undisclosed for the time being but we simply, and with all information that we can share, are explaining the situation in Aleppo and why things are going the way they are.
For those who read between the lines this post is perhaps enough, and for those who need more direct statements, you will get it when the battlefield talk[s].
*
In other parts of Syria, presently the 104th Brigade is in Deir Zor, and the 103rd is in north Latakia, with the 105th in East Ghouta.In Aleppo, we expect an attack from the east and are waiting.
Practically, the main part of this conflict, barring increased foreign interference, is at an end because about 25% of the best trained terrorist forces in Syria are in the Aleppo encirclement, and this is one of the last good combat zones for difficult-to-take urban areas in their fight.
The Russian government deceived itself with its fantasy belief that Moscow and Washington had a common cause in fighting ISIS. The Russian government even went along with the pretense that the various ISIS groups operating under various pen names were “moderate rebels” who could be separated from the extremists, all the while agreeing to cease fighting on successive verges of victory so that Washington could resupply ISIS and prepare to introduce US and NATO forces into the conflict. The Russian government apparently also thought that as a result of the coup against Erdogan, which was said to implicate Washington, Turkey was going to cease supporting ISIS and cooperate with Russia.
Alas, the Russians so fervently, or perhaps I should say feverishly, desired an agreement with Washington that they deceived themselves. If Finian Cunningham’s report is correct, Washington has taken advantage of Russia’s urging that Washington and Turkey join in the attack on ISIS by invading northern Syria under the guise of “fighting ISIS.”
Syria has now been partitioned, and the pretend or fake “moderate rebels” can be built up inside the US/Turkish occupied areas of Syria and the war against Syria kept going for as long as Washington wants. The western presstitutes will report that the Turkish/American forces occupying areas of Syria are not invaders but are attacking ISIS.
With US, Turkish, and, little doubt, soon other NATO troops operating inside Syria, the neoconservatives will have many opportunities to provoke a conflict with Russia from which Russia will have to stand down or reply with force. In the event of a Trump presidential victory, the neocons want to make certain Trump is embroiled in a war that will prevent an accommodation with Russia.
It is unclear whether US Secretary of State Kerry’s effort to arrange a Syrian ceasefire was sincere and he was sandbagged by the Pentagon and CIA. Regardless, if Kerry was sincere, he is obviously unable to stand up to the neocons, blessed as the State Department is with Victoria Nuland and a number of other warmongers.
Obama is equally weak, which is why he was chosen by the oligarchy as president. A person without experience and knowledge is an excellent tool for the oligarchy. American blacks and white liberals actually believed that an inexperienced candidate from nowhere without an organization of his own could make a difference. Apparently, the gullibility of a majority of Americans is endless. This American hallmark of gullibility is why a handful of neoconservatives can so easily lead the sheeple into endless wars.
The idiot Americans have been at war for 15 years and the morons have no idea what has been achieved. The fools are unaware that the US in its decades long accumulation of weakness now confronts two major nuclear powers: Russia and China.
Americans have been taught by the presstitutes serving the military/security complex that nuclear war is not all that different from ordinary war. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two targets of American atomic bombs. Today, seven decades later, the cities are flourishing, so what’s the problem with nuclear weapons?
The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centers while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons. One Russian SS-18 wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years. Five or six of these “Satans” as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.
Russia had a victory for Syria and democracy in its hands, but Putin lacked the decisiveness of a Napoleon or a Stalin and let his victory slip away as a result of false hopes that Washington could be trusted. Now a Russian/Syrian victory would require driving the Turks and Americans out of Syria.
If Russia struck hard and fast, Russia could succeed by using Washington’s lie and claiming that Russia thought the US and Turkish forces were ISIS, just as Washington claimed when Washington intentionally struck a known Syrian Army position.
If Russia actually annihilated the Turkish and US force, which Russia could easily do, NATO would collapse, because no European country wants to be destroyed in World War 3. But Russia won’t collapse NATO by decisive action. The Russians won’t fight until war is absolutely and totally forced upon them. Then they will pay a huge price for their indecisiveness rooted in their foolish belief that Russia has common grounds with Washington. The only common grounds Russia has with Washington requires Russia’s surrender. If Russia will surrender, Russia can achieve Western acceptance, and Washington’s agents, the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists, can rule Russia for Washington.
As the details of Monday’s attack on a humanitarian convoy near Aleppo are yet to be determined and the United States and Russia argue about who could be the perpetrator, the incident might be used as a “propaganda instrument,” but analysts are divided on whose interests it serves.
A UN-Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoy carrying humanitarian aid for Syria’s Aleppo province was attacked late on Monday, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. As a result, 18 of 31 trucks were destroyed and at least 21 individuals were killed.
The tragic incident occurred amid a faltering ceasefire in Syria in force since September 12 just two days before an aircraft of the US-led anti-IS coalition carried out four airstrikes against positions of the Syrian army near Deir ez-Zor by mistake, leaving 62 personnel killed and some 100 wounded.
“Immediately upon signing the [US-Russia] agreement [September 12], the United States goes ahead and violates that agreement in a very carefully prepared operation directed against Syrian forces. It was not spontaneous, it was well-prepared,” Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), told Sputnik.
“The convoy issue has been used as a propaganda instrument by the United States, as a means to distract attention from the US illegal air attacks, in violation of international law, which are a criminal undertaking, it’s a crime of aggression,” Chossudovsky continued.
Following the attack, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said it was an airstrike and the Syrian and Russian governments were the only entities that could have been responsible for it. The White House also questioned the continuation of the US-Russian military cooperation.
The Russian Defense Ministry, in turn, announced that it had studied the video of the attack and said that neither Russian nor Syrian government munitions had hit the aid convoy.
Spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov stated that analysis of the attack footage revealed no signs of bombs, suggesting that fire traces resulted from the offensive launched by Jabhat Fatah al Sham, formerly known as Nusra Front.
“The September 19 attack on the UN/Red Crescent humanitarian aid convoy was an airstrike, according to both US military sources who have intelligence-gathering mechanisms in southern Turkey, and according to Syrian eye-witnesses on the ground during the attack… The attack had to be either by the Syrian Air Force that uses Russian equipment/spare parts/training or by Russian aircraft,” Middle East Institute senior fellow Robert Ford believes.
Chossudovsky, however, disagrees and claims that Russia and Syria had no interest in bombing the convoy, “but the United States had.”
“I am not saying that they did it, but they used this event to smear Russia and the government of Bashar al Assad, as they have been doing right since the beginning of the war in 2011,” Chossudovsky highlighted.
Aid agencies working in Syria strongly condemned the attack and demanded that international powers take specific steps to secure a safe passage of the humanitarian aid to the regions in need. The attack forced the United Nations to halt aid deliveries across Syria. However, in-country operations of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, including cross-border deliveries and air-drops, continue.
From time to time, it is in the interests of the Western media and political establishment to do a bit of “political cleansing”.
Thus the West pulls out some skeleton from the closet. A British Parliamentary Committee has criticized David Cameron for authorizing the use of force in Libya when he was Prime Minister in 2011. However the basis for criticism was not the war of aggression per se (even though it erased from the map a sovereign state) but rather the fact that war was entered into without an adequate “intelligence” foundation and also because there was no plan for “reconstruction”.
The same mistake was made by President Obama: thus he declared last April that Libya was his “biggest regret”, not because he used US-led NATO forces to reduce it to smithereens but because he had failed to plan for “the day after”.
At the same time, Obama has confirmed his support for Hillary Clinton who is now running for president. When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack.
Clinton’s Emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi’s plan to harness Libya’s sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc.
Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and NATO brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to ISIS.
An Email from Clinton, one of the many the Department of State was compelled to de-classify following the uproar triggered by the disclosures on Wikileaks, proves what one of the key objectives of the operation still underway. In an e mail dated 31 December 2012, declassified as “case no: F – 2014 – 20439, Doc No. CO5794998”, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, wrote [2]:
“It is Iran’s strategic relationship with the Bashar Assad regime that allows Iran to threaten Israel’s security – not through a direct attack but through its allies in Lebanon such as the Hezbollah.”
She then emphasizes that:
“the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year” (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Bashar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family”. And Clinton concludes: “wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel’s justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly”.
So, the former Secretary of State admits what officially is not said. That Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons.
The support given by the Obama Administration to Israel over and above some disagreements (more formal than substantive) is confirmed by the agreement signed on 14 September at Washington under which the United States agrees to supply Israel over a ten year period with weapons of the latest design for a value of 38 billion dollars through an annual financing of 3.3 billion dollars plus half a million for “missile defense”.
In the meantime, after the Russian intervention scuppered the plan to engage in war to demolish Syria from within, the US obtains a “truce” (which it immediately violated), launching at the same time a fresh attack in Libya, in the sheepskin of humanitarian operations that Italy participates in with its “para-medics”.
Meanwhile Israel, lurking in the background, strengthens its nuclear monopoly so precious to Clinton.
