Global Research

The GMO agritech sector and food companies have spent tens of millions of dollars in the US to prevent the labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The public have genuine concerns about GM but are being denied the right to know if GMOs are in the food they eat. And the concerns they have are valid.

There is sufficient evidence that indicates the adverse health impacts of genetically engineered food and its associated input, glyphosate, which a major World Health Organization report states is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The majority of GM crops are modified to withstand unlimited doses of glyphosate. The main GM crops – corn, canola, soy and sugar beets – end up in 70 per cent of processed foods in North America.

Over the past few years, the Canada-based Kids Right To Know (KRTK) group has been campaigning for the mandatory labelling of GMOs in food products. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food and the processes or substances involved in producing it that could have health-damaging consequences.

On 30 June, Rachel Parent (founder of KRTK) met with Canada’s new Minister of Health Dr. Jane Philpott to discuss GMOs and labelling. She was joined by Steven Druker, author of ‘Altered Genes. Twisted Truth’, as well as Aube Giroux, a documentary film maker. Parent explained to the minister that the vast majority of Canadians want mandatory GMO labelling and presented her with an extensive list of international organizations that support GMO labelling, including the Ontario Public Health Association, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, American Nurses Association and the British Medical Association.

The minister was given a document containing 10 published, peer-reviewed studies that raise serious concerns about the health risks of GMOs. Another document signed by 300 independent scientific researchers who advise that there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety was presented, along with a further document of 126 international health and public interest organizations that believe that GMOs have not been proven safe.

She also received a copy of the 2015 WHO report that declared glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen to humans, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, which in sprayed on about 85 per cent of genetically modified crops.

Regulatory delinquency

Steven Druker and Aube Giroux then presented the minister with a copy of the Royal Society of Canada report that was commissioned by Health Canada (the federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health) in 2001. Some 15 years on, 51 of the 53 recommendations in the report have not been implemented, including recommendations about independent testing and transparency.

It might seem reasonable to require any testing of GMOs for health safety to be done exclusively by the public sector and government institutions – free from outside pressures – and to ensure a fool-proof regulatory regime predicated on sound independent research and verification of claims open to public scrutiny. It’s the least we could expect considering that GM has the potential to irreversibly alter the genetic core of the food supply.

Despite this, in a 2015 meeting with two senior officials from Health Canada, Parent was informed that the agency does not carry out its own safety studies on GMOs: it merely reviews the data given to it by the industry and approves GM foods based on non-peer-reviewed industry-submitted information. One of the officials stated, “It’s up to them [the industry] to demonstrate the safety.” She was told that because some of the data is proprietary data, Health Canada is not going to divulge information to anyone else to test the product.

If, for some, that implies regulatory delinquency, consider that even when Health Canada reviews internationally published studies, something is clearly amiss. For example, a study by the University of Sherbrooke found Bt (insecticide used with GMO crops) in the blood of human foetuses and their mothers. However, Parent was told during the 2015 meeting, “It didn’t say the foods were not safe. It just said we may have detected something in the blood of pregnant women… .”

Apparently, Health Canada’s toxicologist didn’t agree with the techniques used and therefore couldn’t draw any new conclusions or questions about GMOs. So that was the end of it.

Parent says: “Personally, if there was a study that said there was even a possibility of a widely used insecticide found in the blood of unborn foetuses, I’d be extremely concerned! I’d have lots of questions and want to see more tests done!”

Minister Philpott argues that mandatory labelling is usually based on safety concerns and regulations, thus implying GMOs are safe to consume. During the recent meeting, however, in addition to the evidence presented by Parent, Steven Druker went on to explain to the minister that there is solid evidence to prove that GMOs in fact do have many health risks associated with them.

Keeping the public in the dark

After the meeting, Parent met with MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault who is introducing Bill C-291 for mandatory GMO labelling in Canada, which is expected to have its first reading in December. The next day, she was in Montpelier, Vermont, to celebrate their GMO labelling law that had just come into effect. While Vermont’s Governor Shumlin spoke about the importance of the new labelling law, Bernie Sanders gave an impassioned speech and warned of the revised DARK Act that would overturn Vermont’s democratically achieved state labelling law.

The Dark (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act is a piece of anti-consumer, pro-industry GMO ‘labelling’ legislation that carries no penalties if not complied with and uses a code to denote genetically modified ingredients that requires a smart phone to decipher. It is intended to obscure the fact that a product has undergone genetic modification and is a cynical tactic designed to preempt state and local authority attempts to label and regulate GM foods.

During an interview with Global News last year, the then Canadian Health Minister Rona Ambrose stated,

“If we had the evidence that this [GM food] was unhealthy, Health Canada would act and impose mandatory labels… But right now there is no scientific evidence that conclusively says that in any way genetically modified foods are unhealthy for Canadians.”

According to Rachel Parent, public officials should be looking for conclusive proof that GMOs are safe. Instead, they appear to want conclusive proof that GMOs are not safe, and, until that evidence is in, GMOs can stay on the market without proper labels. Perhaps such officials may also wish to consider that GM ingredients should not even be on the commercial market in the first place, since, according to the evidence presented in Steven Druker’s book, the industry subverted science, corrupted government and deceived the public in order to put them there.

Parent concludes that nobody wants to take on the responsibility of making GMO labelling mandatory in Canada, despite the fact that over 60 countries around the world have this law already and polls show that about 90 per cent of Canadians want this to happen.

At the very least, mandatory labelling should be a no-brainer. Why flood the market with GMOs and just hope for the best – when the evidence indicates we should expect the worst?

‘He’s a decent man, with great integrity – but he’s not a real leader’ is the constant refrain from Jeremy Corbyn’s critics, questioning his electability. At the same time, half of the voting population has railed – in the Brexit vote – against the establishment, jam packed with would-be and retired leaders of the kind that critics want to put in Corbyn’s place. Isn’t it time we put the idea of leadership as we know it under scrutiny?

Let’s start by distinguishing Corbyn’s electability from his credibility as prime minister on the model required by our present unwritten constitution, under which immense and mostly invisible powers are concentrated on Her Majesty’s First Minster.

Electability and organisation 

First, the conditions for his electability. A starting point must be that the general election he will face, whenever it comes, will not be taking place in a functioning political system with a high turnout and strong levels of trust in the main political parties. Rather, it will come after more than a decade of growing disengagement from mainstream politics, especially by the young and the poor and insecure, to a point where the present government was voted for by only 24% of the eligible electorate and many constituency Labour parties have been struggling even to ensure a quorum at their meetings.

To be electable in today’s mood of anti-establishment politics, any leader and party has to be able to reach out beyond the political system and give a voice to those who have no vested interest in that system. Neither left nor right in the Labour Party has been good at this, preferring to presume that the party’s union links provide them with an inbuilt communication with the wider public. Corbyn, aided by the one-person, one-vote system for electing the leader has not taken union support for granted, and has shown himself able to reach out and demonstrate that he would open up spaces in politics for the disenfranchised and ensure they had a voice. He has re-engaged hundreds of thousands of young people, whether or not they are union members.

The explanation emerges in conversation with anyone under 30 who has an ounce of idealism. Gemma Jamieson Malik, for example, a London PhD student driven by housing costs to live out of London, explains: ‘It’s not that I’m a Jeremy Corbyn fan. It’s that he’s opened a space for a new politics I and my friends can feel part of. He’s generated a new energy around Labour.’

Or young artist Mel Evans speaking at a local Momentum meeting: ‘I haven’t been to a party-related political meeting like this for ten years; they had become so boring and so pointless. Now with Jeremy I feel I have a voice and it’s worth being involved. ’

Typically, the young don’t just engage with institutions as they are; they bring new ideas and they shake things up, producing new political configurations with the potential of attracting more of their generation. Hence Momumentum, the organisation created largely by these young Corbynista is not a reocnisable organisation by the stereotypes of the traditional left. It treats political education through football sessions with disaffected youth as important as left caucuses in the party, if not more so; it chooses initiatives like ‘the people’s PPE’ over the stale, pale, male political rallies of the past.

This is the generation whose culture, including political culture, has been shaped by using the tools of the new information and communication technology to share, collaborate and network, emancipating themselves daily from overbearing authority, hierarchy and other forms of centralised, commanding domination. A collaborative, facilitating kind of leadership and political organisation is the only one with which they can engage.

In this way they are building on the innovations of the class of ’68. Jeremy Corbyn’s generation. For this reason, the gap between generations and classes shouldn’t be exaggerated. Older working-class people of Corbyn’s generation listened to Bob Dylan, and the women in their communities were influenced by and contributed to feminism.

Money where his mouth is 

On the other hand, as the Brexit result demonstrates, there are distinct problems to be addressed among the white working class, where strong feelings of abandonment and powerlessness have led, with the aid of right-wing media and politicians, to a scapegoating of immigrants and of the EU. Again, the current Labour leadership, with its commitment to fight austerity, is well placed to reach out to those whose lives and communities have been all but destroyed by cuts, low pay (and no pay), privatisation and casualisation. Jeremy Corbyn can commit himself to putting money where his mouth is when he says that immigration is not the cause of people’s social and economic desperation.

But the Brexit vote indicates that the problems are not simply economic. What also surfaced was the problem of power and powerlessness. Here there is a confluence with the aspirations of the young to achieve some control over their future. But while the urban young use new technologies to create forms of daily collaborative control over their lives, people without easy resources of mobility and communication need other sources of control that they too can feel, in their daily lives.

Here the role of the unions is vital – but not so much in their conventional role as funders and foot soldiers for the party’s election campaigns. Nor is it only about their ability to defend jobs or bargain for better wages. It is also about enabling their members and the wider workforce to obtain greater control over the organisation and purpose of their work, especially in the public sector; an increasing emphasis on the organisation of part-time and casual workers; and support for co-operatives and similar structures as a means by which precarious workers can develop collective strengh.

Greater control of our working lives is limited, however, if our wider political environment is controlled by a remote, over-centralised political system through which there is little or no chance of a voice in decisions about housing, the environment or the national and international decisions of war and peace, trade and investment that shape our lives.

Beyond the ‘strong man’ 

This brings me to the second understanding of leadership: that judged according to the criteria drawn from the nature of prime ministerial power in the British state, a position shaped by decades of adaptation – but not transformation – of the job description of the chief executive at the headquarters of a global empire.

The figure of Churchill continues to haunt. The ‘strong man’ notion of leadership by which Jeremy Corbyn appears all too often to be judged is not just a matter of a ‘macho’ style (though a strong feminist influence would help in any radical rethinking of leadership) . It is embedded in the nature of the UK’s unwritten constitution and the immense but opaque power that it gives to the executive: extensive powers of patronage, powers to go to war, be ready to press the nuclear button, to be at the table of the Security Council and NATO, and in many ways preserve the continuity of the British state.

So my argument is that though the conditions for Corbyn’s electability are entirely within our grasp – especially if his critics in the Parliamentary Labour Party showed some of the respect for party unity that the left has shown throughout the party’s history – his credibility as prime minister would require an effective challenge to the centralised nature of power in our political system, including the anti-democratic ‘winner -takes-all’ electoral system. This challenge would need to be made now, while in opposition, with extensive popular participation. This has been his declared goal but he and the shadow minister responsible, Jon Trickett, have been demoralisingly slow in progressing it. The ‘new politics’ that Corbyn proclaims surely needs to be an explicit agenda of institutional change, not simply a change of style at the front bench dispatch box.

Questions of institution and of policy are closely allied. Jeremy Corbyn’s critics are rarely explicit about how far their criticisms of Corbyn are of his capacities to match up to the responsibilities of highly concentrated power. Or whether, in fact, the implicit issue at the heart of the rebellion, maybe not shared or recognised by all the resignees, is a disagreement on policy: on nuclear power, war, security, respect for the continuity of executive power – a disagreement that will surface and become explicit as the repercussions of Chilcot for our political system and established forms of political leadership, become clear. And finally a belief, reflecting the influence of shadowy pressures coming from ‘the permanent state’ who quite simply will not allow a socialist who means what he says, to be Prime Minister .

Either way, it would be perverse, in the face of the strength of anti-establishment feeling from young and old, to replace a leader committed to breaking establishment power with one who is committed and ready to preserve it.

The results of Spain’s recent election point in a similar direction. There, the voice of a new politics, Unidos Podemos, failed to continue its stunning electoral rise, partly because its leader Pablo Iglesias started to act like a conventional politician and the party leadership closed down its local activist circles. In other words, electability in the context of today’s anti-establishment consciousness requires radical political reform and the alliances to achieve it, not an obsession with being an establishment in waiting.

A further challenge from Spain and from the experiences of the Latin American left which influenced the leadership of Podemos, is this: a distinctive feature of the radical left worldwide is the emphasis that it places on action and organisation beyond parliament. The importance of this is not in counterposition to action in and through parliament but rather as a necessary source of counterpower to the powerful vested interests that have blocked or undermined radical policies for which elected governments in the past have had a popular mandate. After the problematic experiences of left governments in Latin America, however, it is necessary to go further and distinguish between different forms of extra-parliamentary popular organisation from the point of view of the kind of counter power they create. Left leaders in Latin America, whether Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, Hugo Chavez, Eva Morales or Lula Da Silva have tended to act when in government as if left populist street mobilisations were sufficient as a source of counter power. This approach has proved difficult to sustain and inadequate as a means of broadening popular support. It rallies supporters but it does not provide a sustainable way of creating alliances and reaching out to the disaffected. For the deeper, more power- sharing kinds of popular participation, other, usually more local, experiences from Latin America are more promising.

For example, participatory budgeting in the Workers’ Party’s early days when significant sums of money were allocated through municipalities sharing decision-making power (not simply consulting) with citizens who organised themselves through autonomous institutions of mass participation or again in the Workers Party early support for the land occupations and cultivation by the MST (The landless movement) . The point about these two examples is that they involve political support for and collaboration with, autonomous citizens ‘ organisations asserting their transformative capacity through material, productive initiatives of a sustained kind , and in a way which illustrates the kind of society that would be possible if they could be spread more widely. In fact ,in the case of the Workers Party in Brazil, it’s leadership not only failed to generalise such participatory initiatives but made alliances within the corrosive political system, in order to gain and remain in office but at the cost of abandoning wider sources of power to change society.

For Corbyn, such opportunities to support and help build tranformative power through genuinely participatory methods – beyond simply mobilising support – are provided by radical trade union iniatives concerned with the purpose and content of their members’ work (for example recent positive campaigns of the NUT reaching out to parents and the wider community); they are evident in the environment movement around experiments in democratically organised renewable energy sources; they are illustrated historically in the radical economic policy of the GLC, in workers initiatives towards diversification of the defence industry away from weapons of mass destruction (like Trident) and in the many feminist initiatives to bring about changes that liberate women here and now through expanded and democratised public services. Corbyn has talked about following through his belief in the wisdom of ordinary people by drawing up the Labour Party’s manifesto in a participatory manner, rather than going off to write it with his advisers. This could provide an opportunity once his mandate has been renewed in the forthcoming elections, to move beyond the defensive stance of many of his first nince months, and build a gneuinely partcipatory politics.

Our best chance of ensuring that the widespread anti-establishment sentiment becomes a force for democracy and not for reaction, is to support Jeremy Corbyn in bulding such a creative , participatory process but at the same time to take our own initatives in a collaborative, networked movement for political change. Times are so interesting and moving so fast that it is easy to become abrodbed in a Corbyn focused spectator support. What is needed however is practical support, especially initiatives through Momentum which is open to being a platform for a wide range of creative actions.

A bloody and destructive military coup attempt swept Turkey from Ankara to Istanbul overnight into last Saturday plunged the Turkish state into the crisis and leaded to limited ground and air combat in the sites seized by the coup supporters.

President Recep Erdogan and his supporters were able to repel the attempt. However, the cost of their successful strategy – to use civilians as a human shield against the pro-coup military – was high. Some 290 people were killed, including over 100 putschists, and more than 1,400 injured in a chaotic night of violence. The Turkish authorities detained more than 3000 military personnel for the complicity in the coup attempt. Turkish authorities relieved 2,745 judges of duty and issued arrested 140 Constitutional Court members and 48 members of the Council of State.

Among those arrested was General Bekir Ercan Van, commander of the Incirlik air base. The base stores US tactical nuclear weapons and is being used by the US to launch airstrikes on Syria and Iraq. The former Chief of Staff of the Air Force Akin Ozturk, Colonel Muharrem Kose, 2nd Army commander Gen. Adem Huduti and the 2nd Army executive officer, Malatya Garrison Commander Avni Angun, 3rd Army commander Erdal Ozturk and many others, including a military aide to Mr Erdogan, Ali Yazici, were detained.

The coup attempt in Turkey revealed significant gaps of planning and coordination that prevented it from a success.

Overnight into Saturday, the pro-coup military stationed themselves on major bridges in Istanbul and severed roads in Ankara and Izmir. Turkish F-16s were making low flyovers in Ankara. Civilians were told to go home and stay inside. The airports across the country were shut down and flights were paused. They also shut down power to some critical government infrastructure, such as Dolmabahce Palace and took control of some media and communications channels. However, YouTube, other Internet media outlets and many private channels were remaining online. Later, this allowed Erdogan to take upper hand in media while there were almost no reports, depicting the situation, from the opposing side.

Furthermore, the coup supporters were not able to infiltrate isolate and neutralize Erdogan and other representatives of the opposing political and military leadership. They also failed to successfully coordinate own operating cells and manage the remaining pro-Erdogan forces. As result, Erdogan relying on loyal special services and the police and using a human shield of supporters was able to unite the loyal forces and crush the rebellion.

President Erdogan himself laid the blame for the coup attempt on Fetullah Gulen, a US-based opposition leader who allegedly seeks the power in Turkey. In this case, experts link the coup attempt with the reaction of some pro-Western powers on Erdogan’s steps to stabilize relations with Russia and alleged will to find a consensus over Syria. US special services have a wide network of informants in Turkey and it’s hard to believe that Washington had had no information about such preparations.

The failed coup will lead to further purges in the Turkish Armed Forces. This will make it difficult for Ankara to use the military as an instrument of policy and national strategy and combat successfully its own domestic Kurdish militant movement. This will also weaken Ankara’s capabilities to influence the situation in Syria and Iraq through its military power. For example, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria could use Turkish infighting to expand and connect Kurdish-controlled territorial pockets.
If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

I have been a defence lawyer most of my working life and am not used to gathering evidence for a prosecution, but circumstances impelled me to open a file for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, or perhaps some future citizen’s tribunal, in which is contained the evidence that the NATO leaders are guilty of the gravest crime against mankind, the crime of aggression. I would like to share with you some brief notes of interest from that file, for your consideration.

Article 8bis of the Rome Statute, the governing statue of the International Criminal Court states:

For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter on the United Nations.

The NATO communiqué issued from Warsaw on July 9th is direct evidence of such planning and preparation and therefore of a conspiracy by the NATO leaders to commit acts of aggression against Russia, and would be the subject of an indictment of the International Criminal Court against the leaders of the NATO military alliance, if the prosecutor of the ICC was in fact independent, which she is not, and of course, if the articles relating to crimes of aggression were in effect which will not take place until January 1, 2017, if at all, under the articles of the Rome Statute.

Nevertheless, the technical issue of jurisdiction that prevents the issuance of an indictment against the NATO leaders at this time does not legitimate the planning and preparation of acts of aggression as are contained in the NATO communiqué nor reduce the moral weight of the crime of aggression set out in the Statute and the Nuremberg Principles, for the crime of aggression is the supreme crime of war.

On their own words, set out in black and white, in their communiqué of July 9th, the NATO leaders, each and every one, and the entire general staffs of the armed forces of each and every NATO country, are guilty of the crime of aggression. The fact that there is no effective body to which they can be brought for trial is irrelevant to the fact of the crime being committed. They are the enemies of mankind and charged or not, tried or not, they are international outlaws who must be identified as such and called to account by their own peoples.

The evidence of their crimes of course predates this communiqué and consists in years of actions by the NATO powers, since the Soviet Union dissolved itself and the Warsaw Pact, under the agreement with NATO, the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, that NATO would not expand into any of the countries formally members of the Warsaw Pact or the USSR, nor place nuclear weapons there. NATO has broken that agreement continuously since and has, as an organisation, or through groups of its member states, committed acts of aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Russia (during the Georgian attack on South Ossetia and through support of Chechen terrorist groups inside Russia itself), Ukraine and Syria with each act of aggression supported by massive propaganda campaigns to attempt to justify these crimes as legitimate. The western mass media are all complicit in these crimes by distributing this propaganda to the people they are meant to inform.

The same powers have committed and are committing further acts of aggression against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Iran and China and continuously increasing their planning and preparation for aggression against those nations. These plans are also set out in the NATO communiqué but the gravest threat to mankind is the immediate existential threat against Russia, to which the principal part of the communiqué is directed.

The NATO communiqué is in fact a declaration of war against Russia. There is no other way to interpret it.

Many months ago I stated that we can regard the NATO build-up of forces in Eastern Europe, the NATO coup that overthrew the Yanukovich government in Ukraine, the attempt to grab the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, the immediate attacks on Ukrainian civilians in the eastern provinces that refused to accept the NATO coup, the constant propaganda against Russia as “aggressor” and the economic warfare conducted against Russia under the guise of “sanctions,” to be tantamount to a second Operation Barbarossa, the Third Reich’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. I was hesitant to so describe it but the facts were there and now others have recognised that the analogy is the correct one. And just as the leaders of the Third Reich were finally held responsible for their crimes at Nuremberg, so should be the leaders of the new Reich that the Americans and their vassal states are planning to impose on the rest of us.

At Paragraph 5 of the communiqué and following, they commit the first part of their crime by setting out supposed “aggressive actions” of Russia, in which, in every instance, they are the real aggressors.

At paragraph 15 they state, after some drivel about “partnership between NATO and Russia,” that,

We regret that despite repeated calls by Allies and the international community since 2014 for Russia to change course, the conditions for that relationship do not currently exist.  The nature of the Alliance’s relations with Russia and aspirations for partnership will be contingent on a clear, constructive change in Russia’s actions that demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities.  Until then, we cannot return to “business as usual.

What they mean by Russia “changing course” is, of course, doing what they order, and “compliance with international law” means nothing less than complying with NATO diktats. The world saw what happened to Yugoslavia, when President Milosevic had the guts to tell them to go to hell when Madelaine Albright issued her long list of demands, to him, including the occupation of Yugoslavia by NATO forces and the dismantling of socialism, followed by the choice, comply or be bombed. The Yugoslav government had the right and the courage and so defied them, and so NATO leaders activated the leg-breakers, the enforcers, and the murderers who serve in their armed forces and began the vast destruction of a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

We saw it again with Afghanistan, invaded on a legal pretext of harbouring an alleged criminal, Bin Laden, who has never been charged with a crime and who was working under US Army command in Kosovo in 1998-9, fighting against the Yugoslav government.

We saw it with Iraq, ordered to surrender weapons it never had, and then attacked with “shock and awe” a display of military power meant not just for Iraq, but for the whole world; this I what we will do to you if you don’t play ball.

We saw it with President Aristide in Haiti in 2004 when American and Canadian soldiers arrested him at gunpoint and exiled him in chains to Africa, while the world looked away. We saw it in 2010 when President Laurent Gbagbo was arrested by the French and thrown into the morass of the International Criminal Court. We saw it in 2011 when NATO destroyed socialist Libya and we see it now as they try the same against Syria and Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China and most importantly, Russia.

Paragraph 15 is nothing less than a diktat, “obey us or we cannot return to business as usual,” meaning, ultimately, war.

There then follows a long series of paragraphs of lies and distortions about events with everything blamed on Russia. They know these are lies and distortions of course but the point is that these communiqués are generated in Washington as propaganda devices to be quoted over and over again in the western media and referred to by their diplomats and politicians in every speech.

At paragraph 35 and following they refer to their plans for their new Operation Barbarossa, the build-up of NATO forces in Eastern Europe. They call it the Readiness Action Plan. In other words, all those paragraphs set out their plans for preparing the logistical and strategic capacity to attack Russia. That they intend to do so is now clear with the placement of anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania and soon on Russia’s southeast flank in Korea, that are intended to ensure the success of a nuclear first strike on Russia by NATO nuclear forces. The anti-missile systems are meant to intercept any retaliatory missiles launched by survivors in Russia. But, as President Putin pointed out, they can also be used directly in an offensive capacity.

They then emphasize that nuclear weapons are an important part of their strategy and in paragraph 53 state,

“NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned.” The fear is that with recent exercises in Poland and in the Arctic in which the use of air strikes to launch nuclear weapons such as nuclear tipped cruise missiles against Russia played a prominent part, the United States and its NATO allies are planning for and preparing for a nuclear attack on Russia. This is the only conclusion possible since it is clear that Russia has no intention of attacking any country in Eastern Europe nor anywhere else and so the excuse given that the presence of nuclear weapons in Europe is a deterrent against Russian “aggression” is established as a lie and therefore their presence can have only one purpose-to be used in attack.

The evidence is before us, the dossier complete. It sits on a desk, gathering dust, of no use to anyone, except the court of public opinion, and what is that worth these days? But perhaps some one out there will take it, develop it and give it to a tribunal, perhaps one of the people, for the people, set up by the people, to try those who plan to destroy the people, that can act quickly, before the final crime of aggression is committed against Russia; against us all.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Turkey’s Attempted Military Coup d’Etat against President Erdogan

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 16 2016

A faction within Turkey’s military announced that it had seized power against president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The statement accused Erdogan of “eroding the country’s secular traditions”,  Martial law was announced and a curfew was  implemented late Friday night.

Turkey’s Failed Coup: “A Gift from God” or from Washington?

By Tony Cartalucci, July 18 2016

The coup this weekend that rocked Turkey was a particularly spectacular geopolitical development. Theories abound regarding who was behind it and their motivations for carrying out what ultimately proved an apparently failed attempt at removing the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Post- Coup Turkey will be Distinctly Eurasian

By Andrew Korybko, July 17 2016

The aftermath of the failed US-directed and Gulen-inspired coup attempt is already making itself clear, with Prime Minister Yildirim stating that Turkey might reinstate the death penalty to deal with the plotters. This statement is just as symbolic as it is substantial, since not only does it disprove allegations that Erdogan “planned this” himself for some Machiavellian purpose, but it also indicates that Turkey has decided to shun the West.

Turkey, Coup Plots and Tinpot Tyrants

By David Morgan, July 17 2016

Although there have long been signs of opposition to the divisive rule of Turkish President Erdogan and his Islamist AKP, few really expected the military to attempt a coup on 15 July which has now left 265 dead and 2,800 “coup plotters” from the country’s military arrested in the immediate aftermath of the dramatic events.

Public Support for Turkey’s Erdogan More Suspect Than Real

By Stephen Lendman, July 18 2016

In the wake of Friday’s aborted coup, thousands rallying for Erdogan looked suspect. Like all leaders, he can mobilize hard core faithful on short notice to show public support. Saturday demonstrations looked more staged than authentic. Genuine support in the wake of an aborted coup would bring tens or hundreds of thousands out in force.

Military Coups, Turkey and Flimsy Democracy

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 17 2016

“A minority within the armed forces has unfortunately been unable to stomach Turkey’s unity.” -President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Jul 15, 2016. Any aspect of instability in the state of Turkey is going to be greeted with trepidation by those partners who bank on its security role between East and West. The European Union, that rattled club of members who fear the next onslaught against its institutional credibility, have been bolstering Ankara in the hope to keep refugees at bay.

Political conventions showcase party standard bearers, portray unity, and create the illusion of a political process serving everyone equitably – democratic governance at its best when nonexistent. 

Cleveland is Trump’s show, presumptive GOP nominee, to become official when delegates formally choose him as party standard bearer.

Convention proceedings more resemble reality TV than democracy in action. A rogue’s gallery of speakers include right-wing politicians, military figures, and Trump family members, culminating with the nominee’s acceptance speech.

Daily themes include “making America safe again”, “making it work again”, making it first again and making it one again – the usual type pomp and circumstance signifying nothing, circus proceedings, little more, best ignored.

Then repeated when Democrats get their turn next week – a double dose of hypocrisy at its worst, political posturing concealing America’s dark side, an imperial agenda threatening humanity, concealed from public view in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

The most ruthless rogue state in world history intends dueling deceptive dog and pony show extravaganzas – exercises in hyperbole, duplicity, hypocrisy and coverup of the highest of high crimes.

Supporting either duopoly power candidate endorses not an option.  In November, vote independent or stay home.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” 

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html 

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Never has the US-led conspiracy against the sovereign state of Syria been so transparent. When recently a Syrian warplane crashed near the Syrian capital of Damascus and its pilot parachuted to safety, he was captured and promptly executed by US-backed “moderate rebels.” In what was clearly an inexcusable war crime, the story began to change almost immediately in order to shift the blame.

 Reuters in its article, “Syrian warplane crashes near Damascus, rebels say pilot killed,” would report (emphasis added):

The rebel group Jaish al-Islam said the pilot had been killed by a Nusra Front fighter while being held at a joint command centre. Jaish al-Islam had earlier said he would be handed over to them because they had shot down his plane. 

Jaish al-Islam, which controls territory on the Syrian capital’s eastern and northeastern outskirts, had earlier circulated a photo that it said showed the pilot.

The incident highlights several inconvenient facts. First, it exposes the fact that Jaish al-Islam through its own admission maintains a “joint command center” with Jubhat al Nusra – a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organization – meaning that Jaish al-Islam itself is coordinating with and fighting alongside listed terrorists.

That Jaish al-Islam receives significant material support from US allies including Saudi Arabia and NATO-member Turkey implicates both US allies in supporting Al Nusra as well – as these resources are demonstrably being shared.

It should also be noted that it was Jaish al-Islam – a militant front openly collaborating with Al Qaeda – that was chosen by the so-called “Syrian opposition committee” to represent them at so-called “peace talks” held by the UN earlier this year.

The BBC’s article, “Syria conflict: Islamist rebel named opposition chief negotiator,” would reveal in January of this year that:

A Syrian opposition committee has named an Islamist rebel as its chief negotiator at peace talks that the UN hopes to convene in Geneva on Monday. 

Mohammed Alloush is the political leader of the powerful, Saudi-backed group Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam).

This links the rest of the so-called “moderate opposition” directly to foreign-sponsored terrorist organizations as well.

Jaish al-Islam and Nusra’s joint atrocity earlier this month in the execution of a Syrian pilot also reveals another inconvenient fact – that the US is maintaining a duplicitous double game in which it is supporting terrorists fighting in Syria, using the misnomer of “moderate opposition” to condemn any Syrian and Russian attacks on these terrorist groups, then citing and shifting blame on the listed terrorist organizations operating side-by-side these supposed “moderates” when atrocities unfold.

It is a pattern that has – in recent weeks – accelerated, with Al Qaeda-linked terrorist groups dominating fighting across the country portrayed as “moderates” to shield them from joint Syrian-Russian anti-terror operations, while simultaneously disowned as Al Qaeda when atrocities are committed.

In reality, Al Qaeda has from the beginning, and still does, represent the vast majority of those fighting Damascus and its allies in Syria. Regardless of superficial labels used mainly by the Western media to delineate specific groups, it is clear, even through official statements by both the wider militant movement and specific groups like Jaish al-Islam itself, that they fight beside and under Al Qaeda’s banner.

Talking points revolving around the necessity of removing the Syrian government in order to eliminate the extremists of Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” are rendered moot when considering that the entire so-called “opposition” is comprised of Al Qaeda and the “Islamic State,” along with a myriad of subsidiaries openly fighting alongside both.

Business Insider in its article, “The US and Russia may have just sealed Al Qaeda’s fate in Syria,” would cite corporate-financier funded thinks tanks in concluding:

…the US reportedly has begun urging rebel groups to leave areas where Nusra is present so that Russian warplanes can target them without hitting the mainstream opposition. To that end, the US has demonstrated that it is more willing to work on the Kremlin’s terms than on those of the rebels. 

Ultimately, many experts say, the opposition groups Russia has relentlessly targeted since late September 2015 are the only actors on the ground capable of challenging the influence Nusra is trying to cultivate among Syria’s Sunni Arab population

The bizarre conclusions drawn by the writers at Business Insider openly admit that “rebel groups” are operating side-by-side Al Nusra, but paradoxically claim they are the “only actors on the ground capable of challenging the influence” of Al Nusra.

Business Insider, and the think tanks it is providing a platform for, admit that so-called “rebels” are entwined with Al Nusra on the battlefield, but attempting to portray Syrian and Russian strikes on these targets as specific only to the “rebels” and not to the listed terrorists of Al Nusra they are literally shoulder-to-shoulder with in the trenches and collaborating together with inside their “joint command centers.”

In reality, the removal of the Syrian government from power will lead to the same predictable and catastrophic power vacuum that has consumed previous victims of US-led regime change including Iraq and Libya.

It should be noted that while publications like Business Insider attempt to claim the Syrian government has served as a catalyst for Al Qaeda’s rise in Syria, it does little to explain the terrorist organization’s spread elsewhere including Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. In fact, the only single common denominator shared by all of these nations, including Syria, is the fact that each has been targeted for regime change, division, and destruction by Washington – primarily through the use of  US-backed armed proxies aligned with Al Qaeda.

Ironically, it would be the dismantling of the regime on Wall Street and in Washington that would do infinitely more to undermine the viability of Al Qaeda than yet another toppled government and subsequent power vacuum in the Middle East.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.    

author Abayomi Azikiwe

Founded in 1919 by at least two factions of the United States socialist movement, what became known as the Communist Party, USA (CP) was faced with formidable obstacles in building a Marxist-Leninist party inside the citadel of world imperialism. In the aftermath of World War I the U.S. was poised to gain hegemony over other capitalist states in Europe resulting from a variety of factors.

With specific reference to the war itself, fighting was largely concentrated in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe along with the territories that constituted sections of the former Ottoman Empire. Consequently, the industrial infrastructure was not damaged by the war and through the need for military equipment the factories were expanding their operations to supply the necessary hardware for the U.S. and its allies.

During the course of World War I racial unrest erupted in several locations throughout the country including incidents involving African American soldiers serving in the military.

In the aftermath of the war a new round of unrest erupted the largest being in Chicago in the summer of 1919.

This expansion in the industrial production of the U.S. in World War I attracted millions of African Americans into the urban areas of the South and North. Competition for housing, jobs and public space pitted African Americans against whites who were born in the U.S. as well as foreign-born European immigrants.

Efforts to organize labor unions and popular organizations inside the country had been hampered by racial divisions which were fostered by the ruling class interests within industry, real estate, commerce and finance. State institutions from the federal government down to the state and local structures reflected the inherent racist character of the economic and social growth of the U.S. which was rooted in the forced removals of the indigenous Native people and the centuries-long enslavement of Africans.

The Political Significance of the Yokinen Trial

At the Second Congress of the Communist International (CI) held in Moscow in 1920 the question of the status of African Americans was discussed and resolutions were passed. Although no African Americans were in attendance, John Reed, who had written an account of the Russian Revolution of 1917, prepared and delivered a report July 25 on the conditions of the Black population in the U.S. and the potential for organizing work among them.

Reed seemed to suggest that the African American people should be approached and organized as workers and not a nationally oppressed group seeking self-determination. Although Reed mentioned the role of A. Philip Randolph of the Socialist Party and the Messenger newspaper that he co-founded, there was no reference to the rapidly emerging Garvey Movement (Universal Negro Improvement Association-African Communities League) or the cultural renaissance taking place in Harlem and other African American communities nationwide.

In his remarks Reed said

“The only correct policy for the American Communists towards the Negroes is to regard them above all as workers. The agricultural workers and the small farmers of the South pose, despite the backwardness of the Negroes, the same tasks as those we have in respect to the white rural proletariat. Communist propaganda can be carried out among the Negroes who are employed as industrial workers in the North. In both parts of the country we must strive to organize Negroes in the same unions as the whites. This is the best and quickest way to root out racial prejudice and awaken class solidarity.”

Reed continues emphasizing

“The Communists must not stand aloof from the Negro movement which demands their social and political equality and at the moment, at a time of the rapid growth of racial consciousness, is spreading rapidly among Negroes. The Communists must use this movement to expose the lie of bourgeois equality and emphasize the necessity of the social revolution which will not only liberate all workers from servitude but is also the only way to free the enslaved Negro people.”

V.I. Lenin, the central figure in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, in his “Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions” from the Second Congress of the Communist International of 1920, said after listing a series of oppressed peoples including African Americans that,

“An abstract or formal posing of the problem of equality in general and national equality in particular is in the very nature of bourgeois democracy. Under the guise of the equality of the individual in general, bourgeois democracy proclaims the formal or legal equality of the property-owner and the proletarian, the exploiter and the exploited, thereby grossly deceiving the oppressed classes. On the plea that all men are absolutely equal, the bourgeoisie is transforming the idea of equality, which is itself a reflection of relations in commodity production, into a weapon in its struggle against the abolition of classes. The real meaning of the demand for equality consists in its being a demand for the abolition of classes.”

Lenin continues stressing that

“In conformity with its fundamental task of combating bourgeois democracy and exposing its falseness and hypocrisy, the Communist Party, as the avowed champion of the proletarian struggle to overthrow the bourgeois yoke, must base its policy, in the national question too, not on abstract and formal principles but, first, on a precise appraisal of the specific historical situation and, primarily, of economic conditions; second, on a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of working and exploited people, and the general concept of national interests as a whole, which implies the interests of the ruling class; third, on an equally clear distinction between the oppressed, dependent and subject nations and the oppressing, exploiting and sovereign nations, in order to counter the bourgeois-democratic lies that play down this colonial and financial enslavement of the vast majority of the world’s population by an insignificant minority of the richest and advanced capitalist countries, a feature characteristic of the era of finance capital and imperialism.”

However, even though some African Americans and African-Caribbean people were recruited into the Communist Party from the African Blood Brotherhood (ABB) and Socialist Party, by 1925 very little had been accomplished on a mass level. In 1925 the CP-initiated American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC) made several attempts to organize conferences bringing together African American workers and intellectuals. Several of these cadres were sent to study in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) at the KUTVA School. Discussions taking place during 1925-1928 in Moscow and the U.S. coincided with factional disputes inside the American Party. By the Sixth Congress of 1928, a full-blown campaign was launched to force the U.S. Communists to develop more effective work among African Americans.

The Garvey Movement and other organizations had made tremendous efforts during the 1920s. Discontent had set in among leading African American cadres claiming that the Party leadership was not taking the plight of Black workers and farmers seriously. By this time the Party was heavily dominated by both Anglo-American whites and foreign-born immigrants from Europe.

Coming out of the Sixth Congress were resolutions that took specific positions on the status and role of African Americans within the struggle for socialism and communism. Placing these developments within an historical context this writer during a 2010 public meeting in Detroit noted:

“Prior to 1928, very few African-Americans had attended the CI congresses. Otto Huiswood, who had been associated with the ABB attended the fourth congress in 1922 along with the Jamaican-born poet Claude McKay. Even though the Sixth Congress had developed the Black Belt thesis and urged greater work among the African-American community, the rightist forces inside the CP advocated the notion of “American exceptionalism,” which implied that the economic conditions of the United States were different than what prevailed in European capitalists states. The rightist forces within the CP refused to fully implement the thesis adopted at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International. By 1929, another major split developed inside the Communist movement. The followers of Jay Lovestone, the majority faction, were expelled along with some members of a minority faction that included James P. Cannon and Max Schatman, who went on to form the Trotskyist movement in the United States.” (Socialism and the Right of Oppressed Nations to Self-Determination)

When the Great Depression took hold in late 1929, the African American community was devastated. Mass unemployment, racist violence, displacements through forced removals from rural areas and housing evictions in urban centers became the norm. The Communist Party by 1930 had established Unemployed Councils which demanded jobs and food for workers facing extreme deprivations. The Councils fought for a moratorium on evictions and blocked bailiffs from throwing families out of rental properties in cities such as New York, Cleveland and Chicago. Several leading Communist organizers among African Americans were killed and wounded in confrontations with the police.

It was during this period that the Party made significant inroads into the African American communities. Hundreds and later thousands began to join rallies, marches, picket lines and rent strikes. When African Americans witnessed both Black and white communists fighting in the streets for their rights to housing, food and civil rights, the Party began to grow exponentially. Leading African American community leaders and labor activists joined the Communist Party in great numbers.

Nonetheless, the party was still dominated by Anglos and foreign-language clubs. Political development was uneven and consequently the overall institutional racist character of U.S. society fostered division along color lines. While thousands of African Americans joined CP-led mass organizations and campaigns along with becoming party members, racist attitudes prevailing in American society remained.

In areas where segregated labor unions either totally barred African Americans from joining or forcing them into Jim Crow locals with limited resources and no real political attention, the CP emphasized the need to reject racism in all of its forms. The bringing together of Black and white workers, both U.S. and foreign-born, brought out reactionary tendencies among the European Americans. Consequently, in order to preserve its gains in the area of mass work as well as growing Party membership among African Americans, the CP opened a campaign against white chauvinism inside the organization.

A Harlem Show Trial

August Yokinen was a Finnish immigrant and a member of the Communist Party in New York. He was charged with white chauvinism and put on trial by the New York District on March 1, 1931. The trial resulted from the apparent racist treatment of a delegation of African Americans who responded to a notice about a public social event held at the Finnish Club in Harlem.

A pamphlet published by the CP in the aftermath of the hearing in 1931 entitled “Race Hatred on Trial”, said

“This club, composed of Finnish workers, regularly gives such entertainments in the very heart of the Negro neighborhood. At this particular dance three Negro workers came to enjoy themselves as did the other workers there. But when these three Negro Workers came they found, that instead of being given the welcome repeatedly promised by the Communist Party and by all revolutionary workers, they were pushed off to one side and given anything but a cordial reception. In addition to this there was a definite group in this hall that showed such an attitude of hostility to these three Negro workers that they wanted to eject them bodily from the hall. I repeat: instead of receiving the welcome they expected, and the opportunity to enjoy themselves, as did the other workers in the hall, these three Negro workers had to leave the hall because of the hostility of certain white workers.” (p.7)

Moreover, according to this same document,

“we find that the Party members, who are also members of this club, instead of going to the defense of the Negro workers, adopted a tolerant attitude to those elements bitterly hostile to the Negroes. While the principles of the Party declare for stubborn opposition to all persecution and discrimination against Negroes, our Party members in this particular club did not fulfil their responsibilities and duties as Party members. They adopted a policy of smoothing over these issues without taking a decisive stand for the defense of the right of the Negro workers to attend this dance together with the white workers. We have in this organization, Party members, apparently, who vote in favor of a resolution which declares equality for Negroes, but when it comes to actually putting equal rights into practice in the Finnish Workers Club, the Party members were not ready to rush to the defense of these Negro workers. On the contrary, by this negative position they aided those who hounded Negroes out of the hall.” (p. 8)

Once this act of racism and white chauvinism came to light among broader segments of the Party an immediate investigation was conducted. Efforts were underway to institute disciplinary actions against those white comrades who failed to come to the defense of the African American workers. Many of the Finnish workers when confronted admitted their mistakes saying they should have maintained the official policy against discrimination as enunciated by the Party and thrown out those who engaged in the racist behavior.

During interviews with the white comrades present, the majority of which took a position of self-criticism, the Party investigative team encountered August Yokinen who attempted to justify the racism shown toward the African American workers. The Communist Party pamphlet reviewing the Yokinen trial said of the accused “He argued that if the Negroes came into the club and into the pool room, they would soon be coming into the bathroom, and that he for one, did not wish to bathe with Negroes. He justified throwing the Negroes out of the dance, because he was afraid if Negro workers were permitted to come to a dance, they would also come to play pool; they would also come to bathe in the excellent bathroom of which the Finnish comrades are justly proud.” (p. 8)

Identifying Yokinen’s view as “A Dangerous Attitude” in a section of the pamphlet, the CP surmised that this sentiment among white comrades was not an isolated one. The Finnish comrade’s outlook represented a formal acceptance of equal rights for African Americans without putting it in to practice. When faced with social situations where racist norms were destined to prevail within U.S. society, the white comrades fell back on to the institutional discrimination which is at the base of the exploitative system of capitalism, serving as a main impediment to building multi-racial class unity within the Communist Party, the trade unions and the mass movement in general.

The report on the Yokinen trial then states “In this he was giving expression to the white-superiority lies that have been developed consciously by the capitalists and the Southern slave-owners. He was taking a position that hindered the mobilization of the Negro masses for struggle together with the white workers under the leadership of the Communist Party. Just so long as any of our Party members take such an anti-Communist stand, we give to the Negro workers the perfect right to mistrust us and our promises. We must bear in mind that others, besides Communists, have also made promises to Negroes. The Socialists, the Republicans, the Democrats, the American Federation of Labor—all of these bodies have and can continue to make promises. But none of these have fulfilled nor will fulfill their promises. The Negroes have learned to expect from them nothing but broken promises and betrayals. They have learned to mistrust all whites.” (p. 9)

Continuing on this same theme, the pamphlets surmises “Unless every member of our Party fulfils in action the Communist promise to the Negro masses they have the same right to distrust us as they have learned to distrust the other Parties. We say, therefore, that when Yokinen opposed the use of the bath room, the pool room, or any other part of the Finnish Club by the Negro workers, he was giving expression to views that undermine the confidence of the Negro masses in the Communist Party and in the revolutionary white working class. And we must guard the revolutionary integrity of our Party by immediately expelling Comrade Yokinen from membership.”

Yokinen was expelled at the conclusion of the trial but offered the potential of renewed membership if he worked within the mass movement for one year defending the rights of African American people. The accused later acknowledged that he had also been infected with anti-Black prejudices and pledged to reform. The CP claimed that Yokinen understood his crimes and would rectify his attitude and behavior.

The Finnish comrade committed himself to working for a year in the emerging League of Struggle for Negro Rights (LSNR), a successor to the ANLC. This new formation largely grew out of the campaign to save the lives and win acquittals in the Scottsboro Boys case in Alabama where African American men were falsely charged for raping two white prostitutes aboard a freight train. This case won national acclaim for the CP and provided openings for the organization of the Sharecroppers’ Union in Alabama.

This case against August Yokinen gained national and international attention through not only the CP publication but through an article published by the Associated Press. The trial was held in Harlem before an audience of 1,500 African American and white workers. The CP pamphlet noted that Yokinen “was not tried before any court of American ruling-class ‘justice’. He was tried by a court of workers. He was brought to trial by the Communist Party for conduct detrimental to the interests of the working class as a whole and for violation of the fundamental program of the Party.”

Nevertheless, due in part to the wide publicity given to the case by the CP, Yokinen was targeted by the U.S. government for deportation. He was accused of violating the terms of his admission in the country by being a member of what was considered a subversive organization. Yokinen was arrested and detained. A campaign arose in his defense by the CP and its mass units even after his expulsion for anti-Black prejudice and racism. Eventually he was deported even though he was married to a U.S. citizen and had fathered a child which was an American.

The Yokinen trial represented the contradictions facing the CP during the so-called Third Period in the aftermath of the Sixth and Seventh Congresses of the Communist International. Demanding that the American Party take decisive action in eradicating white chauvinism and the demand by African American comrades for more direct political work within their communities, the CP was coming into serious conflict with the values and institutions of U.S. capitalism. If they did not attempt to tackle racism within its own ranks, the Party would be doomed to marginalization within the African American communities and consequently be in defiance of the resolutions on self-determination and full equality mandated by the CI.

Harry Haywood, one of the initial recruits into the CP in early the 1920s, became a proponent of the right of self-determination for the African American people. Haywood had studied in the Soviet Union at KUTVA and pressed during the Sixth and Seventh Congress for the resolutions requiring sustained work among the Black workers and farmers in the U.S.

Haywood wrote in an article published in the Communist in September 1933 that

“The first real achievements of our Party in the leadership of the Negro masses date from the beginning of the application of this Leninist line. A historical landmark in the development of our Negro work was the public trial of August Yokinen. In this trial the case of discrimination by a white Party member against Negroes was made the occasion for a political demonstration in which the Party’s program on the Negro question and the struggle against white chauvinism were dramatized with an unprecedented effect before the widest masses throughout the country. Comrade Browder in his report before American students, in estimating the political significance of this trial, declared ‘that it was a public challenge dramatically flung into the face of one of the basic principles of social relationships in America — the American institution of Jim-Crowism… The explusion of Yokinen, expressing our declaration of war against white chauvinism, exerted a tremendous influence to draw the Negro masses closer to us.’ In this trial the Party achieved a great step forward in the education of its membership and the masses around the Party on our program on the Negro question. This was particularly exemplified in Comrade Yokinen himself who, after six months, came back into the Party as one of the staunchest fighters for its program of Negro liberation and who, as a result of his courageous and militant stand on this question, was deported by the Negro-hating imperialist government. The trial of Yokinen served to prepare the Party ideologically for a real interest in the struggle for Negro rights.”

Building on this point related to the struggle against white chauvinism within the CP and the growth in influence by the Party among the African American masses, Haywood says “Only through the vigorous application of our correct Leninist program on the Negro question could the Party carry through and lead such a struggle as the Scottsboro campaign. This campaign gave rise to the sudden movement of mass participation of Negro workers on an unprecedented scale in the general struggles of the working class throughout the country. The great strikes of the Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia coal miners which broke out in 1931, during the first part of the Scottsboro campaign, witnessed greater participation of Negro workers than any other economic action led by revolutionary trade unions. Large masses of Negro workers rallied to the unemployed movement, displaying matchless militancy in the actions of the unemployed. Notable examples of this were the heroic demonstrations against evictions in the Negro neighborhoods of Chicago and Cleveland.

This same article continues saying “While the Negro masses were beginning to participate more in the class struggles in the North, an event of great historical significance occurred in the Black Belt — the organization of the Sharecroppers Union and the heroic resistance of the sharecroppers to the attacks of the landlords and sheriffs at Camp Hill, Alabama. In this struggle the revolutionary ferment of the Negro poor farmers and sharecroppers received its first expression, resulting in the establishment of the first genuine revolutionary organization among the Negro poor farmers — the militant Sharecroppers Union. The agrarian movement of the Negro masses was further continued and developed in the Tallapoosa fight in which the sharecroppers gave armed resistance to the legalized robbery of the landlords and merchants.

This whole series of class and national liberation struggles was further deepened and politicized through the Communist presidential election campaign of 1932. In this campaign the Party was able to further extend its program among the masses, rally large numbers of Negroes behind its political slogans. Thus the application of a Bolshevik program in conditions of sharpening crisis and growing radicalization of the Negroes has resulted in the extension of the political influence of the Party among the broad masses of Negroes, and in the growth of Party membership among them. Of outstanding importance in this period is the establishment of the Party in the South and in the Black Belt.”

Lessons of the Yokinen Trial for Today

Some may question the contemporary significance of the Yokinen trial and the struggle for a Leninist position within the revolutionary movement. Inside the U.S. the “white only” signs have been taken down across the South and the North. However, racism still permeates U.S. society and the emerging anti-racist movement labelled as “Black Lives Matter” has once again raised the questions of the intersections between national oppression, economic exploitation and political repression.

A phenomenon of police killings of African Americans and Latinos has reached epidemic proportions while the state institutions from the federal government to the local entities have failed to discipline, arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison law-enforcement agents and vigilantes who engage in the unwarranted use of lethal and the systematic targeting of oppressed people for liquidation. The first U.S. president of African descent has been in office for nearly eight years amid worsening social conditions for Black people.

Numerous academic and journalistic studies have documented the policies of racial profiling carried out by police agencies around the U.S. In the aftermath of the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted a wide-ranging study of the situation involving African Americans and the legal system in St. Louis County.

This author in a review of the Ferguson Report published in 2015 a year after the gunning down of unarmed Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson, notes “In a quote taken directly from the Ferguson Report as it relates to the ostensible Fourth Amendment rights of African Americans which are supposed to protect them from illegal search and seizure, it says that ‘In reviewing Ferguson Police Department records, we found numerous incidents in which— based on the officer’s own description of the detention—an officer detained an individual without articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or arrested a person without probable cause. In none of these cases did the officer explain or justify his conduct. Many of the unlawful stops we found appear to have been driven, in part, by an officer’s desire to check whether the subject had a municipal arrest warrant pending. Several incidents suggest that officers are more concerned with issuing citations and generating charges than with addressing community needs.’” (Modern Ghana, August 4, 2015)

The same article goes on to say “The reasons in part for the aggressive policing operations against African Americans in Ferguson and St. Louis County stems from the desire to reap economic gains through excessive citations which are often reinforced by an already biased court system. Despite these observations by the DOJ investigators no criminal charges for civil rights violations were filed and consequently the situation will remain the same until the realization of a mass revolutionary movement that can effectively challenge the system of racism and national oppression.”

Mass demonstrations have continued throughout the U.S. since 2013 when George Zimmerman of Florida was acquitted in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford. These protests continued after the outrage over the police shooting of Michael Brown spread throughout the country. The Black Lives Matter hashtag started by three African American women Alicia Garza, Patrice Cullors and Opal Tometi, came in response to the acquittal of Zimmerman during the summer of 2013. The hashtag has become a movement and organization mirroring the mounting militancy on the part of African American youth and workers.

By the spring of 2015, Baltimore would erupt in rebellion after the death in police custody of Freddie Grey. More demonstrations and vigils were held nationally providing further evidence of the rising national consciousness among African Americans related to their growing intolerance towards racist violence. In the fall of 2015, these anti-racist demonstrations would erupt on the campuses at the University of Missouri, Princeton, and others. An attack on the tributes paid to ideological racists and imperialists at these institutions emphasized the need for a reinterpretation of U.S. and world history.

The character of the anti-racist demonstrations and other actions varied. Many were led by African Americans while others were more multi-national. These aspects of the movement raise questions as to the character of the required organizational structures which have not yet reached full maturity.

Of course there are limitations to the effectiveness and sustainability of spontaneous demonstrations and even rebellions. During the 1960s and 1970s, mass demonstrations and urban rebellions were widespread and consequently the forms of organization took on a more ideological orientation.

For example, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) began through civil disobedience opposing legalized segregation in public accommodations in 1960. By 1961, a staff had been established with a broadening focus on voter registration. By 1964, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) pointed to the necessity of an independent political organization. The founding of the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO), the first Black Panther Party in Alabama, emphasized the need for both independent politics and self-defense.

By 1966 SNCC had come out in full opposition to the U.S. war of occupation and genocide in Vietnam. The Black Panther Party for Self Defense founded in Oakland, California in October 1966, later ran for political offices in 1968 but also sought to form a revolutionary Black party committed to armed self-defense and fundamental political transformation of U.S. capitalism and imperialism. The Republic of New Africa (RNA) formed in Detroit in March 1968, demanded five states in the South for the establishment of an independent Black nation. Many saw the RNA position as a continuation of the Black Belt Thesis emanating from the Sixth and Seventh Congresses of the CI.

Tensions existed during the 1960s and 1970s among Black and white radicals. Efforts were undertaken in the early 1970s to form multi-racial communist parties which would take into consideration the errors of the various left formations of the period between the 1920s and 1960s. These attempts at the formation of a new Communist movement were not sustainable. Many of the same contradictions involving race, gender and social class would emerge amid the major shifts within the structures of the world capitalist system that began in the early to mid-1970s.

In 2016, if these contradictions in race relations within the left movements themselves, both Black and white, are not resolved, there can be no real advancement in the struggle to transform the racist capitalist system in the U.S. Looking back upon the historical occurrences such as the Yokinen trial of 1931reveals the extent to which these contradictions have not been resolved.

A Black-led movement against racism on an ideological level represents the advancements over the degree of political repression levelled against the struggle during the 1950s through the 1970s by the Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other forms of U.S. government subversion of the popular movements for social change. Nonetheless, the role of whites in these demonstrations and movements and their alliances with the African American national liberation struggle requires a systematic study of the triumphs and failures of the past century.

Without question racism must be defeated both within and without of the social justice movements if the organizations are serious about playing a critical role in these reemerging struggles. African American youth are displaying a keen aversion to national chauvinism and attempted marginalization of their concerns. Activists have confronted presidential candidates demanding that they address the plight of the African American people at the hands of law-enforcement and the broader prison industrial complex.

This confrontation will reveal as Bob Marley once said in his song on the Zimbabwe national liberation movement, “who are the real revolutionaries.” Those who reform and adhere to a correct line on the national and class questions of the day will survive and thrive. Others of course will be rendered to the dust bins of history. These developments are inevitable in light of the instability and fracturing within the world imperialist system and its institutions including political parties.

Therefore, the resolution to the issues of the character of the mass movements and revolutionary organizations are pivotal in making the progress necessary to achieve victory over racism, capitalism and imperialism.

He was the kingpin of the whole affair by suggesting it. In December 2015, the US Republican presumptive nominee for President, Donald Trump, came up with that daft suggestion which seems so utterly devoid of informed meaning.  Ban Muslims from entering the United States and the phenomenon of terrorism would somehow be abated.

His prepared statement was characteristically dramatic in the manner of reality television, envisaging a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The recent shootings of US police officers, inflicted by disgruntled former black American soldiers, may inspire Trump to think about another form of banning and banishment, though where, exactly, are we to put such aggrieved patriots? It was the policy of British American settlers to happily make use of slaves and remove them, with the assistance of various trading middlemen, from their African homes.  Such difficulty!

The latest terrorist attack in Nice generated a good deal of activity on the idiocy meter, with other representatives of immigrant societies suggesting that Muslim immigration should stop altogether. Australia’s resident demagogic squawker, Andrew Bolt, did his usual tin-pot surmising with the idea that there were links between immigration, Islam and terrorism in France.

Bolt’s reasoning in the Herald Sun is proudly myopic, a breezy speculative excursion that confuses correlation, causation and everything else.  Jihadists have run amok in France to make “Europe’s bloodiest battlefield” because “France lets in the most Muslims.”[1]

The fact that French foreign policy has an inglorious record of destabilising regimes such as that of Gaddafi’s Libya and further stirring the pot of Islamic fury in Syria, never makes an appearance in the analysis. Western states, goes this line of thinking, engage in foreign theatres without domestic consequences.

Bolt’s hold on evaluation, accuracy and statistics is sketchy. But the life of a fanatic is untroubled by the intrusion of facts, a point that he shares with those terrorists he struggles to understand. “No European country has a higher proportion of Muslims than France – up to 10 per cent of its population, or six million, though statistics are vague, and vary.”

This permits Bolt to engage in a false statistical analysis.  He scours the globe to identify places where the Muslim populations are fewer.  Naturally, he picks a country from his fantasy where immigrants of all types are few and far between: Japan. “Japan has strict controls on immigration and its 127 million people include just 100,000 Muslims.  Result: zero Islamist attacks.”  Genius.

Air head Sonia Kruger, a host of a breakfast show host, Today Extra, decided that Bolt had a point, suggesting the intellectual muscle he can muster for his scribbles.  “There is a correlation between the number of people in a country who are Muslim and the number of terrorist attacks.”

Naturally, Kruger feels that being a mother somehow provides her the magic of omniscient insight, a deep feeling for the sociology of life.  “Following the atrocities of last week in Nice where 10 children lost their lives, as a mother, I believe it’s vital in a democratic society to be able to discuss these issues without automatically being labelled a racist.”[2]

Such views are never far from the psyche of the immigrant society.  Built by immigrants, forged by immigrants, such a society is bound to also have some self-loathing at a certain point. Bad apples found in the cart suggest that it might tip over. Best, therefore, to make sure that particular orchard is never harvested.

In doing so, the argument tends to be made that free speech is being asserted.  Kruger’s shallow understanding here is palpable. “I want to feel safe and I want to see freedom of speech.”  Obviously, banning the followers of a particular faith from entering a country would be a stunning affirmation of how speech is distinctly not free.

While Today Extra is hardly the front line of weighty Enlightenment thinking, co-host David Campbell did provide a tincture of balance. “I’d like to see freedom of religion as well, as well as freedom of speech. They go hand in hand.”

The issue of banning immigrants of a particular disposition coming into Australia has never been far from Australia’s political pulse.  The first act of the fledging Australian parliament in 1901 was the Immigration Restriction Act which inaugurated the White Australia policy.

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has similarly been excited by notions of banning entrants, be they Asians or individuals of a certain disposition.  While opposition leader in the 1980s, Howard gambled on the idea that Australia was simply accepting too many Asians, thereby diluting its cultural and racial stock.

On August 1, 1988, Howard suggested that, “If it is in the eyes of some in the community too great, it would be in our immediate term interests and supportive of social cohesion if [Asian immigration] were slowed down a little so that the capacity of the community to absorb were greater.”

It was political stupidity, and suicide on his part, though he would learn his lesson during the 1990s.  In that decade, he transformed the Australian approach to refugees by developing a trans-pacific prison system euphemistically called processing, using poorer Pacific countries to do Canberra’s dirty work.  During these years, he would launch a series of blows against those arriving to Australia on often dangerous rafts and vessels, claiming that he did not “want people of that type in Australia”.

Those who favour bans on immigrants of a specific religion tend to ignore the obvious point about what resident, and Australian-born followers of that faith would do.  What better statement of deprivation and estrangement could there be than one of state-sanctioned exclusion. What next?  Concentration camps?  Perhaps the logic here is one of internment and ultimate banishment.  Trump would be proud.

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

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/muslim-migration-opens-door-to-terror/news-story/8ee3c985088b9a502ff475b5dbdf74c5

In the wake of Friday’s aborted coup, thousands rallying for Erdogan looked suspect. Like all leaders, he can mobilize hard core faithful on short notice to show public support.

Saturday demonstrations looked more staged than authentic. Genuine support in the wake of an aborted coup would bring tens or hundreds of thousands out in force.

After the April 11, 2002 coup attempt against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, popular support was overwhelming. Spontaneous mass protests erupted. Tens of thousands took to the streets, demanding he be reinstated.

On April 13 he was back, telling Venezuelans “(w)e demonstrated that a united people will never be defeated.”

Chavez was a world-class democrat, a populist hero, beloved and widely supported.

Erdogan became prime minister in March 2003, then president since August 2014. He’s a tinpot despot, an international outlaw, a rogue leader waging war on Kurds in three countries, supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups, an anti-civil libertarian, merciless against anyone challenging his ruthlessness.

Turkey under his rule is more police state than democracy. Criticizing him is considered terrorism or treason. Independent journalists, academics, students, trade unionists, human rights supporters, lawyers and other activists languish as political prisoners under harsh gulag conditions.

Civil and human rights abuses are commonplace. Wealth and power interests alone matter. Popular needs go begging. Neoliberal harshness takes precedence.

A few thousand rallying supportively in Ankara and Istanbul’s Taksim Square hardly constitutes popular support. Memories of late May/early June 2013 remain, Taksim the site of massive anti-regime protests.

Plans to replace its Gezi Park with a shopping mall and reconstructed military barracks sparked things. Police brutality followed. Protesters chanted “Erdogan resign.”

Nationwide strikes followed, public anger expressed against repression, neoliberal harshness, encroachment on secularism and war on Syria.

Taksim Square then and now are marked contrasts. Manufactured popular support masks deep-seated discontent.

Will it erupt ahead more forcefully than before? Will Erdogan’s ruthless rule be his undoing? Or will he continue ruling Turkey with an iron fist uncontested? The jury is out.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

“The Saudi NGOs pay for ISIL’s expenses in Anbar province under the cover of supporting the children of Fallujah city,” al-Hakim said, addressing a UN Security Council meeting in New York on Sunday.

He said that the Iraqi foreign ministry has asked Riyadh to explain about the active religious and social organizations of Saudi Arabia that have sent aid to the ISIL under the guise of helping the Fallujah children.

Al-Hakim called on the UN to act upon international resolutions and force Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stop their financial aids to ISIL.

In a relevant development in early July, French media disclosed that the ISIL terrorist group has been purchasing a large volume of parts for its arms-manufacturing workshops in Fallujah 69 kilometers to the West of Baghdad.

“Fallujah in Anbar province has turned into capital of the ISIL’s workshops which manufacture weapons and ammunition and has close cooperation with Turkish firm active in the field of supplying parts for arms-making factories,” Le Figaro reported.

“There are at least 14 large arms workshops in Falluja, mostly located in residential area, mosques and even hospitals across Fallujah,” the paper said.

“Based on a document, the ISIL in December 2015 manufactured at least three Grade missiles, and test-fired two more Fatah missiles. In February-March 2016, the ISIL made 15 Fatah missiles. The ISIL manufactured 2,500 missiles from Sep 2015 till May 2016 which means 10 missiles per day,” the paper added.

“The ISIL purchased large number of parts, including explosive wires and frames of bombs for its arms workshops. Falluja in not the only city hosting ISIL’s arms workshops, there are similar plants in Tikrit, Ramadi, Southern side of Baghdad and even Kobani in Syria,” Le Figaro added.

The secret reports of the Turkish police indicated in June that the Al-Nusra Front and ISIL terrorists use Turkey’s both legal and illegal border crossings to transfer weapons and ammunition to Syria.

“Certain elements linked to terrorists in Syria are still shipping weapons and supplying their logistics from Turkey,” the Turkish-language daily, Karshi, cited a police report t the country’s public prosecutor about its operations in the city of Diyarbakir.

The newspaper, meantime, said that certain communities have also provided financial supports for the terrorists fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The daily also said the Al-Nusra and ISIL terrorist groups have established bases in Turkey to train recruits, adding that many explosive devices are even manufactured and assembled on Turkish soils.

Commentators who have learned to distrust official explanations, such as Peter Koenig and Stephen Lendman have raised questions about the Nice attack.

It does seem odd that a lone person driving a large truck can gain access to blocked off areas where French people have assembled to watch the fireworks of Bastille Day. It also seems odd that the event is branded a terrorist one when the alleged perpetrator’s family says that he was not at all religious and had no religious motivation.

We will never know. Once again the alleged perpetrator is dead and conveniently left behind his ID.

It looks like a permanent state of martial law in France will be one consequence. This shutdown of society will also dispose of the protests against capitalist puppet Hollande’s repeal of France’s labor protections. Those protesting the take-back of their hard-earned rights will be closed down under the martial law.

Amazing how convenient the attack was for global capitalism, the primary beneficiary of Hollande’s new “labor reform.”

Questions raised by Koenig and Lendman call to mind Operation Gladio. Gladio is the codename for a secret NATO operation set up by Washington after WWII as a result of fear that the Red Army would overrun Western Europe. Originally Gladio consisted of hidden arms caches and an organization to conduct guerrilla war against the Soviet occupying army.

Instead of a Soviet Invasion, the threat that emerged was the popularity of the Communist Party in France and especially Italy. Washington was fearful that communist parties would win enough votes to form a government and that Washington’s Western European Empire would be breached as these communist governments aligned with Moscow.

Consequently, Gladio was turned against the European communist parties. The Italian intelligence service together with the CIA began bombing public places in Italy, such as the Bologna train station in which 285 people were killed, maimed, and otherwise wounded.

Gladio operative Vincenzo Vinciguerra first revealed Gladio’s existence during his 1984 trial for the bombing of the Bologna train station in 1980. Questioned about the Bologna bombing, Vinciguerra said:

“There exists in Italy a secret force parallel to the armed forces, composed of civilians and military men, in an anti-Soviet capacity that is, to organize a resistance on Italian soil against a Russian army…A secret organization, a super-organization with a network of communications, arms and explosives, and men trained to use them…A super-organization which, lacking a Soviet military invasion which might not happen, took up the task, on NATO’s behalf, of preventing a slip to the left in the political balance of the country. This they did, with the assistance of the official secret services and the political and military forces.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenzo_Vinciguerra

It was not until 6 years later, 1990, that the prime minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti (image right), officially acknowledged the existence of Gladio.

Italian General Gerardo Serravalie commanded Italy’s Gladio’s participation in the first half of the 1970s. Wikipedia reports that he testified that those responsible for planning and coordination

“were the officers responsible for the secret structures of Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and Italy. These representatives of the secret structures met every year in one of the capitals… At the stay-behind meetings representatives of the CIA were always present.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio 

There were many bombings with many civilian casualties from the 1960s through the mid-1980s. Vinciguerra said:

“You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people outside the political arena, for one simple reason–to force the Italian public to turn to the state, turn to the regime and ask for greater security. . . . This is the political logic behind all the bombings. They remain unpunished because the State cannot condemn itself.”

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

The bombings were blamed on communist terrorist groups, such as the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang, groups that might have been real or invented intelligence covers to aid the discrediting of European communist parties.

In 1984 Judge Felice Casson reopened a 12 year old case of a car bomb in Peteano, Italy. The judge found that the case had been falsified and blamed on the Red Brigades, but had actually been the work of the military secret service, Servizio Informazioni Difesa (SID) in conjunction with Ordine Nuovo, a right-wing organization created or co-opted by Gladio. The police official who falsified the investigation was sentenced to prison. Judge Casson’s investigation concluded that the Peteano bombing was part of a series of bombings carried out by Gladio including the Milano Piazza Fontane bombing, which killed 16 and injured 80, and the 1980 Bologna railway station bombing, which killed 85 and injured 200.

Based on the Italian revelations, Belgium and Swiss governments undertook investigations of Gladio operations in those countries. The United States government has denied any participation in the bombings. However, Judge Casson’s search of the archives of the Italian military secret service turned up proof of the existence of the Gladio network, and links to NATO and the United States. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio 

Western peoples whose democracies have degenerated into plutocracies are inoculated against the belief that the government would kill its own citizens. Clearly they need to learn about operation Gladio.

Is Operation Gladio still alive and well?

The terror events of today are blamed on Muslims instead of on communists.

Is it possible that the terror attacks in France and Belgium are Gladio-style operations?

Addendum:

This large collection of photos from the UK Daily Mail of the Nice attack — does not seem to show any blood in the streets where the carnage is reported to have happened or any blood associated with what are reported to be bodies.

The white truck that is reported to be the murder weapon does not seem to show any blood or damage. A colleague once hit a deer, and his car was totaled. How can there be 186 people hit and no damage to the truck?

Also, among the photos is a video of police standing exposed a few feet from the truck cab firing into the cab. For the police to expose themselves to a lunatic reported to be armed implies that he wasn’t armed or that the truck cab was empty. Why didn’t the police just open the door and capture him, or if he was armed wait until his pistol ran out of ammunition? In all of these attacks, the alleged perpetrator is always killed. Note also that already there are names and photos of the victims and a history of the perpetrator. How can so many photos of so many different people be so quickly collected and so much information collected about the perpetrator? The media never ask public authorities such questions or ever provide answers. It seems the story is prepared and ready to go when the event occurs, and that story is all we ever get.

And what do we make of this regarding the Bataclan attacks :

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-paris-bataclan-terror-attack-six-french-military-were-present-instructed-not-to-intervene-people-died/5534527

Why would armed French troops on the scene capable of stopping the Bataclan carnage be told to stand down?

The coup this weekend that rocked Turkey was a particularly spectacular geopolitical development. Theories abound regarding who was behind it and their motivations for carrying out what ultimately proved an apparently failed attempt at removing the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Still, it is too early to tell, as facts are far from forthcoming. However, it is possible to discern the most plausible possibilities based on the subsequent actions taken by various potential players who may have been involved in the coup attempt.

US Faces Serious Accusations 

The most significant of these actions is President Erdogan’s own accusations against the United States for having engineered the coup in collaboration with self-exiled Turkish political figure, Fethullah Gulen.

The UK Independent in its article, “Turkey coup: Tensions between US and Erdogan administration rise after failed power grab,” would report that:

Tensions between Turkey and the US have escalated following the attempted coup against the Erdogan administration, with the country’s leader demanding the extradition of a US-based cleric accused of orchestrating the violence. Another senior official has directly blamed the United States.

Indeed, tensions “rising” might seem like an understatement if Turkey truly believed the US was behind the coup attempt. In essence, Turkey is accusing the United States of backing an attempted assassination of Turkey’s president, the bombing of the Turkish parliament building, the strafing of Turkish citizens from the air, and the deployment of heavy armor in Turkey’s streets.

In essence, Turkey has accused the United States of an overt and egregious act of war.

Turkey’s Actions Fall Short Vis-a-Vis the Scale of its Accusations 

However, considering the gravity of Turkey’s accusations against the United States, its actions so far have been disproportionately subdued. No one is suggesting that Turkey would “go to war” with the United States, but even amid diplomatic rows of far lesser significance, nations have expelled diplomats and withdrawn the use of their territory for specific uses by the nation in question. Turkey, so far, has done none of this in regards to the United States.

In the coming week, should Turkey fail to take even these most basic punitive – even cautionary measures, it would appear Turkey’s accusations are a distraction – but a distraction from what?

The Purge. 

The BBC in its article, “Turkey coup arrests hit 6,000 as Erdogan roots out ‘virus’,” reports that:

Arrests in Turkey after Friday’s failed coup have risen to around 6,000, with President Erdogan vowing to purge state bodies of the “virus” that caused it. 

At a funeral for one of the victims, Mr Erdogan again blamed US-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen for the plot. Mr Gulen strongly denies any involvement. 

High-ranking military officers and 2,700 judges are among those held.

Beyond Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, one would be hard pressed to cite a political purge of this scale. Despite the sweeping scale of the mass arrests – the Western media has reported on them without the sensational hysteria that generally accompanies the arrest of even one US-backed opposition member in any other nation. The scale of the arrests are such that preparations for them must have been made ahead of time, calling into question the very nature of the coup itself.

The Coup Was a “Gift From God” 

A Reuters report titled, “Turkey rounds up plot suspects after thwarting coup against Erdogan,” would state (emphasis added):

“They will pay a heavy price for this,” said Erdogan, launching a purge of the armed forces, which last used force to stage a successful coup more than 30 years ago. “This uprising is a gift from God to us because this will be a reason to cleanse our army.”

President Erdogan, heading a NATO-member state and a stalwart US ally, receiving a “gift from God” from an alleged political opponent lodging in the United States, raises serious suspicions over the true motivation behind the coup. While it appeared as a convincing attempt to oust President Erdogan from power, it ultimately failed and instead provided him with the perfect context to uproot the military “deep state” both his political allies and US policymakers have sought to eradicate for decades.

Despite the apparent “rift” between the United States and Turkey’s president, it should be noted that for the past 5 years particularly, President Erdogan and his government have played a key role in US-led regime change operations in neighboring Syria. It was President Erdogan’s anti-secular factions, including factions within Turkish intelligence and within the military itself, that trained, armed, equipped, and provided cover for terrorists operating within, along, and over the Turkish-Syrian border.

Image: A torrent of supplies cross the Turkish border into Syria destined for Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed “Islamic State.” The US and Turkey have done little to expose this, saying nothing of their inaction to stop it. It was only Russian airstrikes along the border that have finally brought the torrent down to a trickle.

Without President Erdogan’s stalwart support, US designs in Syria would have been untenable even before they began. While the US poses as “fighting” terrorist organizations in Syria, it has consistently neglected any attempt to secure the Turkish-Syrian border over which the summation of material support for these terrorist organizations is passing. It must be remembered that not only are the US and Turkey cooperating in regards to Syria, the US has troops stationed within Turkey itself, engaged in various aspects of the ongoing violence in Syria.

US intelligence agencies have admittedly operated along the Turkish-Syrian border since as early as the beginning of 2012, according to the New York Times article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,”

A Crucial Litmus Test 

If the world is expected to believe accusations by Turkey regarding US involvement in the recent coup attempt, Turkey must materialize significant changes in its foreign policy.

This would include the expulsion of US forces from Turkish territory, including from Incirlik Air Base as well as from along Turkey’s border with Syria.

The expulsion of US diplomats and the closure of America’s substantially large embassy, diplomatic, and military complex in Ankara would also be expected in the wake of an act of war on this scale.

Additionally, Turkey would be expected to reevaluate its membership within NATO – an alliance that failed to come to Turkey’s aid amid a military attack upon it by one of NATO’s own members. One would wonder what the utility was of an alliance predicated on “collective defense” that is more likely to eliminate one of its own members, than a foreign enemy.

Finally, considering Turkey’s accusations against the United States, Ankara would be expected to realign itself geopolitically. This would mean closer ties to Europe, Russia, and Iran – among others. In order to do this, however, Turkey would have to end its role in the destruction of Syria which has resulted in a torrent of refugees flooding Europe,  and in a conflict that has cost Russians and Iranians their lives as they fight to restore peace and stability across their ally Syria’s territory.

Turkey Likely Will Change Foreign Policy for the Worse, Not the Better 

In all likelihood however, none of these changes will take place – indicating before the entire world that the coup was staged – not against Turkey – but in part by it, with the help of not only the United States, but also Gulen’s political faction. It will represent a 21st century “Reichstag fire” leading to a 21st century “Hitlerian purge,” removing the last remaining obstacles to President Erdogan and the corrosive institutions he has constructed in their collective bid to seize absolute power over Turkey.

And quite to the contrary of those changes one would expect Turkey to make if truly the US engineered this coup to oust, not abet Erdogan, Turkey is very likely to double down on hostility toward neighboring Syria and its allies.

The failed coup attempt against Erdogan provoked a flurry of excited polemics in the alternative informational space, leading to the emergence of two competing hypotheses. The author already published his own analysis on how this was actually a sloppy, last-ditch move by the US to frantically offset the game-changing geopolitical consequences of the surprise Russian-Turkish detente, but the other main theory that’s going around is that this was all a false flag attempt by Erdogan to seize more power.

The False Flag Theory

There are plenty of reasons why this is believable, not least of which is Erdogan’s involvement in other false flag plans such as the aborted 2014 mission to attack the Suleyman Shah tomb in northern Syria as a pretext for launching an all-out invasion. The Turkish strongman has also been implicated in the terrorist bombing campaign that broke out in the southern part of the country last summer and was eventually used as the grounds for relaunching hostilities against the Kurds.

Advocates of the “false flag coup” theory point to Erdogan’s immediate retribution against political opponents as alleged proof that he initiated his country’s regime change drama in order to give him a reason to carry out more purges and complete the Islamification of the constitutionally secular state. Actually, it was already widely known that the President had a long list of political enemies that he was progressively dealing with one by one, and that the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Salafization of society had been gradually enabled through internationally recognized “democratic” means (however flawed and manipulated they may be). Erdogan didn’t need a “false flag coup” to continue with this years’-long and drawn-out agenda, though it did admittedly accelerate his plans.

In arguing against the “false flag coup” theory, it’s relevant to bear in mind that Erdogan is the consummate politician and never misses a chance to exploit a crisis to his benefit. After the re-establishment of his power in the wake of the failed coup, Erdogan saw an unprecedented moment to take out all of his enemies in one fell swoop, which is exactly what he’s in the process of doing right now. Still, this doesn’t necessarily prove that he wasn’t “in on it” all along.

A Reasonable Refinement Of The Theory

To entertain those allegations for a moment and add a bit more reasonable of an approach to them, it’s theoretically possible that Erdogan was in fact aware that a coup was actively being cooked up against him, but might have calculated that it’s better to let the weak and already compromised plan play out in order to crush it and then reap the opportunistic advantages. This would in a way resemble the situation around Pearl Harbor and some would even say 9/11, where the US knew that an attack was coming but had a deep-seated grand strategic interest in letting it happen regardless.

The author isn’t necessarily endorsing this approach when it comes to Turkey, and it seems too overly risky of a gamble even for Erdogan (who has a history of such reckless behavior), but going along with this theory for a moment, it’s conceivable that he could have even been tipped off by Russian intelligence about what was going to happen. Moscow could have offered up the details of this plan as a trust-building gesture in the run-up to the game-changing Russian-Turkish detente, and also because Russia didn’t want the US and its informational allies to lay the blame at its feet if it failed.

Erdogan, uncontrollably enraged at the US for trying to orchestrate his humiliating future downfall on live TV, might then have committed to his country’s gradual Eurasian reorientation, but knew that he would need publicly justifiable grounds for doing so, ergo allowing the compromised American plan to proceed so that he can squash it right afterwards and use it to explain his country’s foreign policy pivot.

Actions Speak Louder Than Speculation

Anyhow, whether Erdogan was caught completely unaware by the coup or decided in advance to capitalize off of it, the sequence of events that has played out in its aftermath offers convincing proof that the forcible regime change attempt was directed by the US.

Turkish Labor Minister Suleyman Soylu came out and said as much, but Prime Minister Binali Yildirim was more diplomatic when he said about Gulen that “I do not see any country that would stand behind this man, this leader of the terrorist gang, especially after last night. The country that would stand behind this man is no friend to Turkey. It would even be a hostile act against Turkey.” The concurrent de-facto neutralization of the US airbase in Incirlik through the imposition of a no-fly zone (though not formally stated as such), the cutting off of power to all of its facilities, and the arrest of its commander General Bekir Ercan Van on the base’s premises for his coup involvement all very strongly suggest that this isn’t just a stage-crafted melodramatic power grab by Erdogan, but the opening stages of a serious geopolitical reorientation away from the US.

Whether the US remains in Incirlik or not is actually a moot point, since the profound symbolism around what’s unfolding is much more substantial than the Pentagon’s physical presence there. Never before in history has the US been cut off from its own nuclear weapons, which is essentially what’s happened with the no-fly zone and power shutoff to Incirlik. Erdogan is trying to convey in the most memorable and impactful way possible that he is the Sultan over all of Turkey — including Incirlik — and that he will not tolerate having the facility used against him for actively aiding and sheltering coup plotters. In response to this unthinkable disrespect from a former quisling, the US is now preparing a vicious Hybrid War offensive against Erdogan, one which might even escalate to the level of geopolitically dismembering Turkey and throwing the more than 70 million people who inhabit the Neo-Ottoman “caliphate” into a cauldron of chaos that could then be strategically redirected against Russia and Iran.

Weaponizing The Turkish Battlespace Against Russia And Iran

Both of these multipolar states have been well aware of how the US wants to destabilize them vis-a-vis the promulgation of Mideast mayhem, and this fundamentally explains their anti-terrorist military cooperation in Syria. With the tide of that war having finally turned against the US and the conflict slowly drawing to a close (however long it may ultimately take to fully resolve), it’s foreseeable that the US will seek to manufacture other regional conflicts to take its place and prolong the indirect asymmetrical war against Russian and Iranian grand strategic interests. The militant creation of the “second geopolitical Israel” of “Kurdistan” is definitely part of these plans, but with Erdogan’s anti-unipolar rebellion and the subsequent fallout from the failed US-directed coup, Washington now has a host of reasons for exploiting the myriad opportunities to tear Turkey apart.

Russia and Iran both understand the severity of what’s at stake, and it’s very likely that the US will seek to transition it’s failed coup attempt against Erdogan into the seeds for a new Color Revolution against him and perhaps possibly even an Unconventional War. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why Turks despise their President, with his Lead From Behind involvement in the War on Syria and Salafist domestic policies being first and foremost among them, but the fear is that the justifiable anger of a large segment of society can be exploited by the US in its quest to spread turmoil around Turkey and create a black hole of chaos that would structurally function as a “New Syria”.

Iran’s Response And Interests

Foreseeing this chain of events and realizing that it would be the first to be directly affected by it, Iran immediately voiced its opposition to the coup attempt. Foreign Minister Zarif, in comments reported on by publicly financed Iranian broadcaster Press TV, even went as far as telling parliament that “We were the first country that explicitly declared our position regarding Turkey, while other countries either kept mum or…were vague in their stance, if they adopted any, and failed to voice their support for democracy…Some countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar preferred the escalation of the attempted coup against the Turkish government.” This full-throated and powerfully worded statement goes way beyond mechanically voicing support for the internationally recognized government like mostly everybody else has been doing and inarguably demonstrates that Tehran is intentionally positioning itself as Ankara’s closest international ally in the post-coup regional landscape.

The reasons for this are several and have to do with the following:

* not wanting to be victimized by Weapons of Mass Migration in the aftermath of the country’s US-planned destruction;

* wanting Erdogan’s sustained and coordinated cooperation in responding to the potential for cross-border Kurdish terrorism (Iran is presently under attack by the PKK-allied “Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran”);

* and envisioning that an Iranian gas pipeline could one day connect to the TAP project in northern Turkey and satisfy Europe’s demands for non-Russian energy supplies.

Russia’s Response And Interests

Russia’s anti-coup response was more muted by comparison, but was still nonetheless pretty strong. Refraining from accusing any actor of wanting to profit from the latest events and staying away from emphasizing just how quickly it diplomatically responded to the coup like Iran did in both instances, Russia simply expressed its support for Turkey’s internationally recognized government and spoke about the impermissibility of militant regime change. Tellingly, though, President Putin later called Erdogan and agreed to push forward their planned September meeting for next month, as well as discuss potential cooperation via the Eurasian Economic Union.

Russia’s interests in Turkey are manifold, but a few stand out more than the rest and aim to ensure that Ankara completes its geopolitical reorientation by taking the following steps:

* disown its former policies by cutting off support for terrorists in Syria and sealing off the border from continued terrorist infiltration;

* restart the Balkan Stream pipeline negotiations and unfreeze this pivotal multipolar megaproject;

* and deepen the complex economic interdependence with Russia by cooperating with it through the Eurasian Economic Union platform.

Additionally, Moscow’s diplomatic support for Erdogan’s presidency is also driven by the pragmatic need to prevent the Gulenists from seizing power. If the US-based and Clinton-connected religious leader of this shadowy transnational network were to become Turkey’s next leader or had controlling influence over whichever of his proxies ends up doing so instead, then Russia has every reason to believe that they’d redirect all state instruments to promoting the network’s terrorist agenda in the entire post-Soviet territory. This could create dozens of “mini-Chechnyas” for Russia to respond to on behalf of its CSTO allies, thus putting it permanently on the strategic defensive and reversing all the relative gains that it’s achieved worldwide since 2008.

Turning An Eye Away From Erdogan’s Sins

The most controversial aspect of this entire affair that many multipolar supporters have difficulty accepting is why Russia and Iran would support Turkey despite being totally aware of Erdogan’s complicity in the War of Terror on Syria. Furthermore, after seeing images of retributive mob violence in Istanbul and at least one verified public beheading, to say nothing of the cross-sectoral nationwide purge that’s going on right now, people that are otherwise sympathetic to Russia and Iran’s foreign policies are scratching their heads and wondering why Moscow and Tehran aren’t determinately speaking out against such shocking events.

In reality, and as much as it may disappointment many readers, the harsh fact is that neither Russia nor Iran have any interest in their partners’ domestic affairs, whether for right or for wrong. Each state generally pursues a policy of state sovereignty whereby they ignore oftentimes controversial developments within their partners’ countries so long as pragmatic state-to-state cooperation isn’t impeded as a result.

The exception to this rule is mostly seen whenever a state of paramount interest to Russia or Iran suddenly becomes, or already has been, hostile to either of them and embarks on a series of scandalous domestic steps designed to indirectly damage these multipolar leaders’ strategic positions within the country. For example, post-Maidan Kiev implicitly supported the ethnic cleansing of the Russian and Russian-affiliated population in Ukraine, thus explaining why Moscow responded in Crimea and extended certain forms of support to the Donbas militias.

Iran, on the other hand, has responded negatively to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s violent suppression of their Shiite minorities. It should be qualified, though, that Tehran has also previously engaged in less-justified exceptions to this rule by arming the Bosnian mujahideen and diplomatically backing the anti-Gaddafi fighters that it officially proclaimed were involved in an “Islamic Awakening” (the term that it employed for the “Arab Spring” Color Revolutions prior to realizing that they were all American-directed unipolar operations).

In spite of the case-by-case exceptions that Russia and Iran take to their cardinal foreign policy guideline of supporting state sovereignty, both of these countries still reject the Western-crafted ideologies of “humanitarian intervention” and “democracy promotion”. Neither of these counties typically let “humanitarian” or “democratic” considerations influence their relations with their counterparts, though like it was already stated, this doesn’t necessarily hold true when dealing with hostile governments that have shunned pragmatic partnership (whether existing or potential). Moscow and Tehran see “humanitarian intervention” and “democracy promotion” as marketing gimmicks for “justifying” destabilizing political, economic, social, and military interventions into other countries’ domestic affairs for the pursuit of “zero-sum” geostrategic gains, and as such, these stratagems should only be used sparingly and in the most extreme of circumstances.

Concluding Thoughts

Due to the guiding foreign policy principle of state sovereignty, the fact that Erdogan has pivoted in moving Turkey closer to becoming a friendly multipolar ally, and because of the bigger geopolitical considerations at stake at the moment, Russia and Iran diplomatically support Turkey at this pivotal moment in its (and the rest of the world’s) history in spite of Erdogan’s anti-“humanitarian” and anti-“democratic” exploitation of the failed US coup against him.

When earlier today we reported that Turkey has closed the airspace above, and suspended all US-led air missions out of the giant Incirlik airbase (which houses some 50 US nuclear bombs), we said that there is speculation the “airbase may be held “hostage” by Ankara as a bargaining chip ahead of demands for the extradition of Erdogan’s arch enemy, Fethullah Gulen, currently a resident of the state of Pennsylvania.” A few hours later this was partially validated when during a televised speech, Turkish President Erdogan called on the United States to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a US-based Muslim cleric he accuses of being behind Turkey’s failed coup attempt.

At roughtly the same time, Turkey’s Minister of Labor went one step further, and accused America of being behind the coup on live Television, as it was harboring Gulen.

To be sure, as we wrote first thing this morning, Gulen, who is currently residing in Saylorsburg, Peynnsylvania, said he condemned the coup “in the strongest terms.”

Gulen, as those who have followed recent Turkish history know, is Erdogan’s quasi-imaginary bogeyman nemesis; Erdogan has repeatedly accused Gulen of plotting a “parallel state” whose intention is to overthrow Erdogan, and has used that strawman narrative as justification to expand his powers and to push for a shift from a parliamentary to a presidential regime. Gulen wrote in his blog that “As someone who suffered under multiple military coups during the past five decades, it is especially insulting to be accused of having any link to such an attempt. I categorically deny such accusations.”

Islamic preacher Fethullah Gulen is pictured at his residence in Saylorsburg, PA

None of this mattered to Erdogan who said as Turkey’s strategic partner, Washington should meet the demand for the extradition of Pennsylvania-based Fethullah Gulen. He also added that Turkey had never turned back any extradition request for “terrorists” by the United States, implying it is the US imperative to extradite the man Erdogan accuses of starting last night’s failed coup.

As Reuters adds, Turkey’s foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, said on Saturday he had made clear in a call with U.S. counterpart John Kerry that followers of U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen were behind a coup attempt, and yet strangely enough, “had not directly discussed the cleric’s possible extradition.”

The revisionist narrative spun by the Turkish government, goes as follows: a faction of the armed forces, deemed by the government as loyal to Gulen, tried to seize power using tanks and attack helicopters overnight. As we learned previously, one hundred and sixty-one people were killed, including many civilians, in the ensuing violence. Allegedly up to 3,000 soldiers have been arrested, a paltry figure in comparison to the total size of the Turkish army, recently estimated at 315,000 personnel.

Cavusoglu said the military now needed to be “cleansed” of Gulenist influence. “Once this cleansing is finished our military will be stronger, our soldiers will be stronger, providing better support and coordination to NATO,” he said.

In an indirect hint that the Incirlik airbase may indeed be held hostage, the minister said soldiers at the base in southern Turkey, used by the U.S. military to conduct air strikes against the Islamic State, had been involved in the coup attempt and that arrests had been made.

“Once these operations are completed, we will continue our fight against Daesh (Islamic State) with either coalition nations, or within the NATO framework, and resume our cooperation with NATO,” Cavusoglu said.

But not sooner, and perhaps the delay may last as long as it takes for the US to respond to the extradition request.

Or maybe not.

As AP adds, a Turkish official, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government regulations, said Turkey “has been preparing a formal application with detailed information about Gulen’s involvement in illegal activities. After last night we have one more thing to add to an already extensive list.” And, more to the point, no formal extradition request has been made yet.

Which means that Erdogan may be merely doing more of what he is so good at: populist pandering while using foreign scapegoats to further cement his authoritarian status.

Furthermore, the truth is that Erdogan has little to gain from the extradition of Gulen, who has absolutely zero responsibility for what is increasingly likely a self-orchestrated coup. As we said earlier today, it benefits Erdogan far more to keep Gulen in the US – where he can use him as a perpetual scapegoat to “justify” his relentless power-grab – than to bring him home where his trial (and execution) would eliminate one of the biggest pretexts Erdogan has to be openly paranoid in public, and demanding ever more power.

John Kerry responded that the Obama administration it would entertain Gulen’s extradition request,but he said Turkey’s government would have to prove Fethullah Gulen’s wrongdoing.

Visiting Luxembourg, Kerry said Turkey hasn’t yet requested that the United States send home Gulen, who left Turkey in 1999.

“We haven’t received any request with respect to Mr. Gulen,” Kerry told reporters.

“We fully anticipate that there will be questions raised about Mr. Gulen. And obviously we would invite the government of Turkey, as we always do, to present us with any legitimate evidence that withstands scrutiny. And the United States will accept that and look at it and make judgments about it appropriately.”

“I’m confident there will be some discussion about that,” Kerry added. We are confident that once the initial bluster passes, there will be no formal extradition request, and even if there is, Gulen will stay in his home in rural Pennsylvania: after all Erdogan has absolutely nothing to gain from such a move. Meanwhile, in other news, Turkey’s Third Army Corps, Akin Ozturk, who was appointed as head of the Turkish air force in 2013, has been detained and will face treason charges, Reuters reports, citing a Turkish official. Local media have named Ozturk as the likely leader of Friday night’s coup attempt in Ankara.  Also detained by the Turkish police was Alparslan Altan, a member of the Constitutional Court and most senior judicial official among the scores detained so far in the wake of the attempted military coup, CNN Turk reported.

Information leaked to both Turkish daily Hurriyet and Al-Jazeera on Sunday confirmed an attempt to kill or capture Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and unveiled further details about the inner workings of the attempted coup.

Hurriyet reported that First Army Commander Umit Dundar contacted Erdogan on Friday night, about an hour before the coup began, to inform him that putschists had started to move on his position, allowing time for the president to escape before soldiers stormed his place of residence.

The Turkish newspaper published the new leaks, obtained by a writer close to decision-making circles, which said that Dundar called Erdogan while the president was on vacation at a resort in Marmaris, southwest Turkey.

“You are our legitimate president,” Dundar told Erdogan. “I am at your side, there is a huge coup and the situation is out of control in Ankara. Come to Istanbul and I will secure your access to the roads and accommodations there.”

The newspaper said that special units backed by helicopters stormed the hotel to arrest or assassinate the president, about a half hour after he left. By that time, he was on his way to Istanbul.

Details of the story were confirmed by Al-Jazeera Istanbul bureau chief Abdul Azim Mohammed, who added that the three helicopters from the military’s special forces that arrived at Erdogan’s hotel in Marmaris were carrying 40 soldiers with the intention of killing or capturing the president.

The presidential guard clashed with the coup soldiers before several of them fled through the mountains after one of their helicopters broke down.

Al-Jazeera also reported that the commander of the gendarmerie in Bursa, Colonel Muharrem Kose, was arrested three hours after the attempted coup.

Kose was in possession of a list of more than 80 people who were supposed to administer the country in the next stage of the coup, after a state of emergency was declared.

The list included military officers, ministers, judges, prosecutors and governors.

Inside the coup

Al Jazeera also received leaks of a series of WhatsApp messages between the coup leaders and participants.

They had created a group on the smartphone application to communicate and send commands to their fellow conspirators. The leaks show that the group was active, with the coup leadership receiving responses from their subordinates.

According to the leaked messages, the coup was planned to start at 03:00am (local time), but an emergency forced them to bring forward the start of their plot in Ankara and Istanbul.

They then set about controlling key government buildings, bridges and airports.

The messages show that the coup began at 21:30pm. Military units were sent to the two cities and, within 15 minutes, they had taken control of the bridges that cross the Bosphorus Strait in Istanbul. Ten minutes later, they took control of the building of state-run broadcaster TRT.

The leaks also indicate that military units arrived at the Ataturk Airport in Istanbul to surround it at 22:00pm, and that the putschists faced resistance from police in Bayrampasa district of central Istanbul.

The correspondence included evidence of some police officers’ willingness to join the coup.

Turkish authorities became aware of the plot at 22:00pm, prompting the coup leaders to send orders to their soldiers to shoot any members of the security forces who resisted them.

The leaked messages include an order to the coup forces present on the Bosphorus bridges to allow some stranded citizens to leave and to kill any resisting police officers trying to cross the bridge.

Copies of the leaked messages confirmed that former air force commander General Akin Ozturk was the mastermind of the attempted coup, and that the original plan was to declare a state of emergency and curfew and halt air traffic at 06:00am.

CIA, CNN & Coups

Hurriyet also reported that two months ago, a former US intelligence agent revealed he had discussed with Turkish officials “the possibility of a coup”.

On Friday evening, CNN hosted several former CIA agents to discuss the coup attempt.

Among them was former officer intelligence Robert Baer, who said that he had participated in successful coups in other countries.

Baer said the coup attempt in Turkey was “not professionally done”. He added that the putschists should have occupied CNN Turk’s building, where Erdogan appeared that night via Facetime and asked the Turkish people to protest against the coup.

A newly-released email and lobbying documents filed with Congress reveals new ties between Clintonworld and members of a network operated by a mysterious Islamic cleric from Turkey.

Connections between Clinton and acolytes of the imam, Fethullah Gulen, could muddle the complex relationship between the U.S. and Turkey, a key NATO ally, if the former secretary of state wins the White House.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has mounted an aggressive crackdown against Gulen and his followers, known as Gulenists. Erdoğan, who was once allied with Gulen, has even personally asked President Obama to extradite the 74-year-old guru, who has lived in self-exile in Pennsylvania’s Pocono mountains since 1999.

Erdoğan has accused Gulen of attempting to undermine the Turkish government. Gulen’s followers control many Turkish institutions, including the media, courts, and police force.

In addition to muddying that complex geopolitical dynamic, a 2009 email recently released by Judicial Watch provides yet another example of access being provided to a Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation donor.

In the April 1, 2009 message, a Gulen follower named Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in connecting one of his allies to President Obama.

Ozkok is founding board member of the Turkish Cultural Center and part of a network of businesses and non-profits affiliated with the Gulen movement, also known as Hizmet.

Ozkok served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC. He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign last year. He is also listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s website as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation. He’s given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.

Another link between Gulenists and the Clinton orbit was revealed in a lobbying registration disclosure filed last month with the Senate. It shows that a Gulen-aligned group called the Alliance for Shared Values hired the Clinton-connected Podesta Group to lobby Congress on its behalf. The group seeks to lobby for the “promotion of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”

The group’s executive director is Alp Aslandogan, a former professor at universities in Texas. He has also donated to Clinton’s political endeavors, campaign finance records show.

The Podesta Group is a natural choice for those seeking influence with Clinton. The firm was co-founded by John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and his brother Tony, a major Clinton campaign bundler.

Through various non-profit groups, both Gulenists promote the cleric’s teachings, which are relatively moderate and pro-Western. They are also involved in the Gulen movement’s money-making endeavor: a vast network of taxpayer-funded charter schools.

Those schools, which number more than 150, have been a source of controversy for the Gulen movement.

Federal investigators have reportedly investigated some of the schools for using work visas to bring Turkish citizens to the U.S. to teach. In some cases, taxpayer funds were used to pay immigration and legal fees for family members of teachers who worked at the facilities. Funds allocated to the schools have also been funneled to contractors controlled by Turkish nationals with connections to the Gulen movement.

A 2011 New York Times article focused on suspicious ties between Gulenist schools operating in Texas under the name Harmony Public Schools. Harmony contracted with a company controlled by a pro-Gulen non-profit called the Cosmos Foundation. In 2002, Aslandogan purchased property that was later sold to Harmony. He also founded the Texas Gulf Foundation, which has also been awarded taxpayer-funded contracts to provide services to Gulen schools.

Aslandogan did not return a request for comment. Nor did Ozkok, who has affiliations with Gulen-connected education firms Sema Education and Apple Education Services.

The partnerships between the schools and contractors allow taxpayer funds to remain within the Gulen network. Teachers at the schools, many of whom are not fluent in English, are also used to help finance Hizmet, according to one former teacher at a Gulen institute.

The teacher, who is now a government whistleblower, told “60 Minutes” in 2012 that Turkish teachers are required to return a large portion of their salary to the Gulen network. She said that her Turkish husband, who taught at one of the schools, was required to return 40 percent of his salary.

Accusations of visa fraud and other impropriety, which Gulenists largely deny, have contributed to an increased profile for Gulen, who ended up staying in the U.S. permanently after coming here for medical treatment.

Erdoğan’s campaign to rid Turkey of Gulen’s influence has also thrust the recluse onto the public spotlight.

On top of his efforts to crackdown on Gulenists within the Turkish media, judiciary and police, Erdoğan has sought to exert influence over Gulen in the U.S.

During a 2014 visit with President Obama, Erdoğan, who served as prime minister prior to his presidential term, reportedly asked Obama for Gulen’s extradition. The Turkish government has also retained the law firm Amsterdam & Partners in an effort to undermine Gulen and Gulenists in the courts as well as the media.

The connections between the Gulen movement and Clinton are not the first to be revealed. They also add to questions about what it is the Gulenists want from Clinton and whether the Democrat has rewarded their financial support with favors.

Last year The Daily Caller reported that numerous Gulen followers have donated to Clinton’s various political campaigns and to her family charity. One Gulen movement leader, Recep Ozkan, donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

As senator from New York, Clinton gave a keynote address at the Turkish Cultural Center’s annual banquet.

The email to Abedin, which is the first piece of communication showing that a Gulen follower had direct access to Clinton’s staff, sought a favor.

“Please tell Madam Secretary that it would be great if President Obama can include a 15 minutes [sic] meeting with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of of [sic] the Islamic Conference (OIC), in his trip to Turkey,” wrote Ozkok.

April 1, 2009 email from Gokhan Ozkok to Huma Abedin. Obtained by Judicial Watch

Some terror watchdog groups flagged the meetings, pointing to Ihsanoglu’s past praise of the terrorist group Hamas and for Sudanese president and U.S. foe Omar al-Bashir. But Ihsanoglu does not appear to be a radical firebrand like so many Islamists in the Middle East.It is unclear if Abedin forwarded Ozkok’s request to Clinton or anyone else in the Obama administration. But Ihsanoglu, who is an ally of Gulen’s and lost to Erdogan in the 2014 presidential election, did meet with Obama in Istanbul several days after the email. There, Obama reportedly extended an invitation to Ihsanoglu to visit the White House. The academic visited in June 2009 and reportedly asked Obama to create a U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world.

As for the Podesta Group, the lobbying firm has connections to several controversial companies seeking to peddle influence at Clinton’s State Department.

Daily Caller investigations have revealed that the Podesta Group has represented Uranium One, a Russia-controlled uranium company that had ties to Canadian mining magnate and Clinton Foundation philanthropist Frank Giustra.

The Podesta Group also lobbied Clinton’s State Department on behalf of BAE Systems just as the U.K. defense contractor was facing stiff government sanctions for illegal arms trading. The Associated Press has sued the State Department for records pertaining to discussions to let BAE Systems off with a slap on the wrist for its infractions.

Clinton’s favorite lobbying firm also started working last year for Islami Bank Bangladesh, a Bengali bank that has been linked to terrorist groups. And earlier this year, Tony Podesta, the Clinton bundler and Podesta Group principal, was hired by the Saudi government.

The Rio Tinto mining corporation is a British/Australian transnational mining corporation that is the second largest mining company in the world. It is a close second – in terms of ranking in the Forbes 500 – to the biggest, the British/Australian mining corporation BHP Billiton (considered the 19^th worst polluting corporation in the world).

BHP Billiton was responsible for Brazil’s largest environmental disaster in history when, on November 5, 2015, two of the dams encompassing its toxic tailings ponds burst, suddenly releasing uncounted millions of tons of poisonous slurry into the Rio Doce river, killing all aquatic life downstream and wounding many local people. The huge amount of poisons suddenly released have likely permanently polluted the waters of the once drinkable and fishable 300 mile long river all the way to the Atlantic Ocean).

Brazil’s Rio Doce after the BHP Billiton disaster 2015

Incidentally, BHP Billiton is one of the 90 largest corporations in the world that extract and market fossil fuels and are responsible for 2/3 of the greenhouse gas emissions that have been altering the earth’s climate and polluting its air, water, soil and animal and plant life since the beginning of the industrial age.

The History of Rio Tinto Copper Mining

After Rio Tinto purchased the mining rights to large portions of copper-rich southwest Spain in the late 1800s, the English mining corporation named itself after the river that flows out of the area, which contained one of the largest pyrite (pyrite = “fools’ gold” = iron disulfide [FeS2]) sulfide deposits in the world. The area that was damned to become Spain’s most polluted area is called the Iberian Pyrite Belt (IPB). Over the centuries, the IPB attracted a number of exploitative corporate entities, including the Roman Empire, because of the raw copper and high grade copper ore, as well as the occasional silver and gold deposits (from which the Romans cast some their earliest coins).

Incidentally, Tinto in Spanish means “tainted” (not “red”) after the highly contaminated (with toxic minerals and sulfuric acid) and multicolored (usually red from dissolved iron oxide) hues that discolored the toxic water emanating from the underground and open pit copper/iron/manganese sulfide mines that had been active off and on for thousands of years.

The Rio Tinto watershed and estuary was once, before Christopher Columbus set sail from the river in 1492 and for several centuries prior to the era of open pit sulfide mining, a thriving commercial fishing area, but ever since the mining corporations began exploiting the area (with open pit mining techniques), the estuary fed by the Rio Tinto no longer has any fish or other aquatic life in it. And offshore, in the Gulf of Cadiz, the only commercially viable fishing today is for small migratory fish like sardines and anchovies.

Water Downstream From Rio Tinto Copper Mine Has a pH of 2!

The Rio Tinto, despite attempts at governmental remediation over the past generation, people still can’t drink the water, only partly because the water in the river has a dramatic acidic pH of less than 2, which approximates the acidity of stomach acid. Chemical burns are guaranteed if human skin or mucosa is exposed to the water even for a brief time. The river water is infamous for being able to dissolve iron.

But acid water isn’t the only reason that the water can’t be used, for the Rio Tinto is also one of the most chemically polluted watershed systems in the entire world. But it wasn’t always that way. One can thank the inherent dangers of sulfide mining for its demise.

 The Rio Tinto today, thanks to Sulfide mining

Poisoned watersheds, including both surface water and aquifers near either underground or open pit mining, are inevitable and are also likely to be totally irremediable forever, no matter what is said in the carefully scripted corporate talking points that seem to be so convincing to naïve politicians and bureaucrats.

An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure

Copper/sulfide mine-contaminated Super Fund sites that occur near lakes, streams and aquifers can never be remediated no matter how many billions of scarce tax dollars are thrown at them or how many millions of dollars are theoretically set aside for the inevitable future catastrophic tailings pond ruptures. The few temporary jobs “promised” by the sociopathic corporations will not be given to the vast majority of northern Minnesota miners. There are less risky ways to create jobs.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his family practice career. He now writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn and at http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls.

The aftermath of the failed US-directed and Gulen-inspired coup attempt is already making itself clear, with Prime Minister Yildirim stating that Turkey might reinstate the death penalty to deal with the plotters. This statement is just as symbolic as it is substantial, since not only does it disprove allegations that Erdogan “planned this” himself for some Machiavellian purpose, but it also indicates that Turkey has decided to shun the West. The EU is strictly against the death penalty and would immediately halt the decades-long drawn-out accession negotiations with Turkey as a result.

Erdogan correctly calculated that the EU wants nothing to do with his country and that Turkey is unable to milk extra benefits from the bloc after the Brexit referendum, so he recalibrated his state’s foreign policy to align with the multipolar world instead. This saw the recent news of Turkey belatedly declaring Al Nusra a terrorist organization and opening up secret reconciliation talks with Syria, despite still repeating the “face saving” refrain of “Assad must go”. Furthermore, Turkey is part of Russia’s nascent coalition of regional powers opposed to the US’ daring attempt to militantly carve out the “second geopolitical Israel” of “Kurdistan”. Not only that, but Turkey are Russia are also back on track for reimplementing the Balkan Stream megaproject, which when paired with China’s complementary Balkan Silk Road high-speed rail project from Budapest to Piraeus, is perhaps the most ambitious multipolar outreach to Europe that has ever been attempted.

The US stands to lose many of its strategic gains in the past decade if any of these multipolar counteroffensives succeed, let alone all of them, which is why it desperately masterminded this last-ditch attempt to safeguard its unipolar hegemony. Try as it might, though, it was patently obvious what the US was doing, and even Syria’s close Iranian ally – which many might otherwise think would have a relative interest in Erdogan’s downfall – voiced its support for Turkey’s “brave defense of democracy” via a tweet by Foreign Minister Zarif. Despite this statement being somewhat of an oxymoron, it proves that the Syrian government’s most active on-the-ground ally understands the greater interests at play here and is thus standing behind Erdogan (however shocking this might seem to many) because of the bigger picture that was just elaborated on above.

As a closing forecast, it’s very likely that Turkey will accelerate its multipolar pivot and finally embrace its Eurasian destiny, though not without forthcoming American-improvised Hybrid War challenges – a renewed Kurdish insurgency, left-wing terrorism, a Color Revolution, Daesh attacks, maritime proxy hostility via Greece, engineered provocations with Turkey’s other neighbors, a civil war, and/or another feeble coup attempt — in order to throw the progressively Islamifying and Muslim Brotherhood-inspired state into such chaos that it becomes impossible for its new multipolar partners to make any substantial use of its territory in their joint quest to dismantle the unipolar world order.

The controversial film director has been reported to authorities by the Antifascist League.

(Please also read the updated tweets below. There are some very interesting nuggets in there that are not yet reflected in the text.)

Yesterday’s short coup attempt (real time MoA) by parts of the military against the wannabe-Sultan of Turkey failed. Some 200 people on both sides were killed, some 1,200 wounded.

The plotters’ major mistakes were:

• to not capture Erdogan and the leaders of his political and security organizations,
• to not shut down all means of mass communication, especially the Internet, except those under their strict control,
• to not put out a trusted public face to represent the coup.

Erdogan escaped and could orchestrate the counter to the coup. He could continue to communicate with his security management, foreign politicians and his supporters. Without any well known alternative leader the public had only Erdogan to follow.

The amateurish behavior of the coup plotter opens the question of who ran this show. Was this, as some asserted early on, an Erdogan plot to seize more power?

There are three possible motives/perpetrators behind this coup:

• the Islamic movement following the preacher Fetullah Gülen, a former Erdogan ally and now arch-enemy who lives in the U.S. and has CIA relations;
• the old Kemalist secularist movement in the military and deep state;
• the Erdogan AKP movement in a false flag operation to seize more power;

There is no evidence for any of these theses and none of them clearly fits the observed pattern.

The response will be harsh. Edogan will crack down on ANYONE he politically or personally dislikes – completely independent of their involvement in the coup. All political parties, even the mostly Kurdish HDP, spoke out against the coup while it was ongoing. The religious Gülen movement also opposed it. Most of the involved soldiers were told that they were part of an exercise. It will not save any of them from Erdogan’s and his supporters’ wrath.

The somewhat coup-supportive early statements from Lavrov (“avoid bloodshed”) and Kerry (“stability!”) will increase Erdogan’s mistrust of any foreign official.

Erdogan will now become even more paranoid and unpredictable than he was before. The domestic atmosphere in Turkey will become extremely strained.

A few relevant recent tweets (see last post for many earlier ones):

5:36 PM – 15 Jul 2016 chinahand @chinahandI’ll put on my tinfoil hat re TK. What kind of coup waits til bossman’s out of town & doesn’t try to detain him? & AKP has plenty of

@chinahand diehard para-fash assets that wud hit streets immediately on its behalf. No plan to counter that? #WorstCoupEver I suspect

@chinahand TRE knew about the plot, made sure it would fail w/ help of loyal officers pretending to be part of it, & let it go ahead.

@chinahand now time to clean up the (extremely messy) mess & take out the trash, methinks

6:24 PM – 15 Jul 2016 ilhan tanir @WashingtonPointPres Erdoğan says this is an opportunity presented by God to clean up Turkish Military . #live press conference

9:12 PM – 15 Jul 2016 (((Garrett Khoury))) @KhouryGarrettTurkey: Erdogan confirms coup forces surrounded his hotel in Marmaris…4 hours after he had left. That’s a special sort of ineptitude.

10:13 PM – 15 Jul 2016 ilhan tanir @WashingtonPointTurkish Army Forces published its last memo at 6.50 am local (90 mins ago) saying “movement continues”

9:45 PM – 15 Jul 2016 i24NEWS English @i24NEWS_EN#BREAKING 754 members of Turkish armed forces arrested across Turkey: state news agency

11:17 PM – 15 Jul 2016 Mustafa Akyol @AkyolinEnglishThis #turkeycoupattempt had not much to do with “Islamist-vs-secularists.” Secular opposition sided with the govt against the putschists.

11:39 PM – 15 Jul 2016 Nasser Atta @nasseratta5Number of detained military personnel after #Turkish coup attempt rises to 1,563 across country: official

11:48 PM – 15 Jul 2016 Alev Scott @AlevScottErdogan denouncing “traitors” on state TV channel, which a few hours ago was hijacked by the military denouncing him pic.twitter.com/j30UiQ3jau

11:53 PM – 15 Jul 2016 Gregory Djerejian @GregDjerejianIf you thought Erdoğan was becoming overly authoritarian bordering on some neo-Sultan or such oh boy just you wait now post-aborted putsch.

1:05 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Asaf Ronel @AsafRonelTurkey’s acting army chief of staff: Coup attempt was rejected by chain of command immediately.

General Dundar: We’ll continue to serve the people. I would like 2 thank all political parties and the media for their support for democracy

More: “The armed forces is determined to remove members of the Gulen movement from its ranks”

1:32 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Frank Nordhausen @NordhausenFrank#Turkey This was a weird coup. I was on Taksim square 3 hours, my impression was: that’s not real. I saw military in Cairo – no comparison.

1:38 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Elijah J. Magnier @EjmAlraiDespite results in #Turkey, Erdogan will be very busy internally, reforming, reshuffling, turing the army upside-down.His throne has shaken.

1:42 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Elijah J. Magnier @EjmAlraiWhen the coup was taking over, the #USA embassy called the coup “Turkish uprising”. #Turkey. pic.twitter.com/dEcWvXsLYd

2:43 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Elijah J. Magnier @EjmAlraiJabhat al-Nusra #AQ spiritual scholar al-Maqdisi attacked the Turkish Army responsible of the coup as “anti-Islamic” pic.twitter.com/UlKrbX5gaS

3:03 AM – 16 Jul 2016 @dr_davidsonAfter digesting #TurkeyCoup news, my view is Erdogan’s agents in military forewarned him, & there were considerable benefits allowing it 1/3

Erdogan has big opportunities to purge military (think Sadat’s ‘corrective revolution’) & claim supra-electoral nation-saviour status. 2/3

The question is which allies Erodgan decided to keep in loop. If none, then Qatar, MB & fellow travellers will have had disturbed night 3/3

3:35 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Aylina Kılıç @AylinaKilicAhrar al-Sham publishes support message for Turkish government for coup attempt in #Turkey, citing “democracy first”

4:46 AM – 16 Jul 2016 DAILY SABAH @DailySabahBREAKING – Turkey’s top judicial body HSYK lays off 2,745 judges after extraordinary meeting sabahdai.ly/GSnzF0

Interesting how fast they drew up that list. This move was long planned and may have been a reason for the coup. See below.

5:27 AM – 16 Jul 2016 archicivilians @archiciviliansFree Syrian Army (#Syria Opposition ) released a statement congradulating the fail of #TurkeyCoupAttempt. pic.twitter.com/8S

5:28 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Hussain AbdulHussain @hahussainIn 24 hours of news coverage of #Turkey, in all the military and the civilians who took to streets to restore democracy, not a single woman

5:35 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Reuters World @ReutersWorldTurkish PM: Any country that stands by cleric Gulen will be at war with Turkey reut.rs/29KtlNW pic.twitter.com/VJcTrtVi6M

That is a direct Erdogan threat to the U.S. where Gülen lives.

5:48 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Émad @EMostaqueNoted yesterday imminent big changes in judiciary by HSYK may have been key catalyst for coup, now accelerated

2:54 PM – 15 Jul 2016 Émad @EMostaqueProximate causes for #TurkeyCoup may have been recent reorganisation of judiciary as well as Ataturk attack

5:50 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Kayode Odeyemi @kayodeyemiPower to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, which is used by U.S. to launch airstrikes against #ISIS, has been cut, U.S. consulate in #Turkey says

earlier

3:41 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Putintintin @putintintin1Turkey jets which bombed #Ankara refilled from fuel tankers took off from Incirlik airbase!!

Consider: Erdogan demands that U.S. delivers Gülen to him (without evidence of coup relations). Erdogan isolates major U.S. base (with nukes) in Turkey. This could get VERY interesting …

5:57 AM – 16 Jul 2016 ilhan tanir @WashingtonPoint10 State Council, top court members are detained allegedly for having ties to failed coup attempt.

6:32 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Ragıp Soylu @ragipsoyluJournalist @sahmetsahmet says police was to arrest coup leaders yesterday before they mobilise, that led the coup pic.twitter.com/UdXViNUf1V

7:16 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Liam Stack @liamstackJohn Kerry on the Turkey coup: “I must say it does not appear to be a very brilliantly planned or executed event.” nytimes.com/live/turkey-co…

7:18 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Ellie Geranmayeh @EllieGeranmayeh Speculations flowing in #Istanbul re #TurkeyCoup linked to annual military meeting in Aug where gov plan to purge Gulenist soldiers (leaked)

7:19 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Elijah J. Magnier @EjmAlraiElijah J. Magnier Retweeted Marianne

Imposing Sharia punishment on soldiers in #Turkey for their failed coup
[pic showing bearded Erdoganists whipping soldiers in the street after they surrendered]

8:24 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Jim Colella @Jim_ColellaReports today of 2745 judges removed after last night’s #TurkeyCoupAttempt. Wtf? How’s that related? Watch all that happens next.

+ 5 judges frm top judicial appointment body (HSYK) dismissed. 48 Council of State judges detained. 140 arrest warrants 4 Supreme Ct Appeal

9:15 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Asaf Ronel @AsafRonelthere’s a report saying a anti-Gulen operation was in final stages & ignited the coup attempt – the lists were ready

9:15 AM – 16 Jul 2016 ilhan tanir @WashingtonPointConstitutional Court (US-Supreme Court) member Alparslan Altan, VP at highest court appointed by A.Gul, is detained.

9:46 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Mete Sohtaoğlu @metesohtaogluFour #Turkish parties make rare joint statement against coup attempt
#TurkeyCoupAttempt #AKP #CHP #MHP #HDP pic.twitter.com/UOBTU339uT

9:59 AM – 16 Jul 2016 The Truth @JunkTruthDid @BarackObama know of and approve the #TurkeyCoup? Turkey’s Patriotic Party says CIA is behind Gulen coup: pic.twitter.com/HoAhPBKuBg

see pic-link above – interesting read

10:08pm · 16 Jul 2016 Gissur Simonarson CN @GissiSim“Pro-Democracy” protesters who lynched soldiers to death display “Grey Wolves” hand signals over dead bodies #Turkey

10:10pm · 16 Jul 2016 Turkey Untold @TurkeyUntoldBREAKING: Secretary of Labor Süleyman Soylu live on news channel Haberturk: “The US is behind this coup” pic.twitter.com/khqdbUw7re

10:12 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Asaf Ronel @AsafRonelTurkish official confirms authorities found coup-plan lists saying which officers will be governors, heads of government agencies etc

Lists included more than 100 names with matching would-be posts. Not all of them arrested yet #TurkeyCoupAttempt

10:32 AM – 16 Jul 2016 CNN Türk ENG @CNNTURK_ENG#BREAKING Turkish President Erdoğan speaks live, calls U.S to hand over Fethullah Gulen to if U.S is strategic ally

Translation – Erdogan to U.S.: “If you want to keep access to Incirlik airbase you will have to give me Gülen!” (mentioned that earlier – see above)

10:32 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Yaroslav Trofimov @yarotrofGulen will be a huge issue, possibly costing US access to Incirlik base. twitter.com/turkeyuntold/s…

10:42 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Joshua Landis @joshua_landisClearing out Gulenists, fall guys for coup. They aren’t know 4 strength in army. Still not clear who is behind this.

Political parties just demonstrated solidarity against the coup. Now this:

11:08 AM – 16 Jul 2016 Conflict News @ConflictsBREAKING: Pro-Kurdish HDP offices under attack in by pro-Erdogan supporters in Iskenderun, Malatya and Osmaniye #Turkey – @michaelh992

Here’s the good news: wind power, solar power, and other renewable forms of energy are expanding far more quickly than anyone expected, ensuring that these systems will provide an ever-increasing share of our future energy supply.  According to the most recent projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, global consumption of wind, solar, hydropower, and other renewables will double between now and 2040, jumping from 64 to 131 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs).

And here’s the bad news: the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas is also growing, making it likely that, whatever the advances of renewable energy, fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global landscape for decades to come, accelerating the pace of global warming and ensuring the intensification of climate-change catastrophes.

The rapid growth of renewable energy has given us much to cheer about.  Not so long ago, energy analysts were reporting that wind and solar systems were too costly to compete with oil, coal, and natural gas in the global marketplace.  Renewables would, it was then assumed, require pricey subsidies that might not always be available.  That was then and this is now.  Today, remarkably enough, wind and solar are already competitive with fossil fuels for many uses and in many markets.

If that wasn’t predicted, however, neither was this: despite such advances, the allure of fossil fuels hasn’t dissipated.  Individuals, governments, whole societies continue to opt for such fuels even when they gain no significant economic advantage from that choice and risk causing severe planetary harm.  Clearly, something irrational is at play.  Think of it as the fossil-fuel equivalent of an addictive inclination writ large.

The contradictory and troubling nature of the energy landscape is on clear display in the 2016 edition of the International Energy Outlook, the annual assessment of global trends released by the EIA this May.  The good news about renewables gets prominent attention in the report, which includes projections of global energy use through 2040.  “Renewables are the world’s fastest-growing energy source over the projection period,” it concludes.  Wind and solar are expected to demonstrate particular vigor in the years to come, their growth outpacing every other form of energy.  But because renewables start from such a small base — representing just 12% of all energy used in 2012 — they will continue to be overshadowed in the decades ahead, explosive growth or not.  In 2040, according to the report’s projections, fossil fuels will still have a grip on a staggering 78% of the world energy market, and — if you don’t mind getting thoroughly depressed — oil, coal, and natural gas will each still command larger shares of the market than all renewables combined.

Keep in mind that total energy consumption is expected to be much greater in 2040 than at present.  At that time, humanity will be using an estimated 815 quadrillion BTUs (compared to approximately 600 quadrillion today).  In other words, though fossil fuels will lose some of their market share to renewables, they will still experience striking growth in absolute terms.  Oil consumption, for example, is expected to increase by 34% from 90 million to 121 million barrels per day by 2040.  Despite all the negative publicity it’s been getting lately, coal, too, should experience substantial growth, risingfrom 153 to 180 quadrillion BTUs in “delivered energy” over this period.  And natural gas will be the fossil-fuel champ, with global demand for it jumping by 70%.  Put it all together and the consumption of fossil fuels is projected to increase by 177 quadrillion BTUs, or 38%, over the period the report surveys.

Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of climate science has to shudder at such projections.  After all, emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels account for approximately three-quarters of the greenhouse gases humans are putting into the atmosphere.  An increase in their consumption of such magnitude will have a corresponding impact on the greenhouse effect that is accelerating the rise in global temperatures.

At the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris last December, delegates from more than 190 countries adopted a plan aimed at preventing global warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level.  This target was chosen because most scientists believe that any warming beyond that will result in catastrophic and irreversible climate effects, including the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps (and a resulting sea-level rise of 10-20 feet).  Under the Paris Agreement, the participating nations signed onto a plan to take immediate steps to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and then move to actual reductions.  Although the agreement doesn’t specify what measures should be taken to satisfy this requirement — each country is obliged to devise its own “intended nationally determined contributions” to the overall goal — the only practical approach for most countries would be to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

As the 2016 EIA report makes eye-poppingly clear, however, the endorsers of the Paris Agreement aren’t on track to reduce their consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas.  In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise by an estimated 34% between 2012 and 2040 (from 32.3 billion to 43.2 billion metric tons).  That net increase of 10.9 billion metric tons is equal to the total carbon emissions of the United States, Canada, and Europe in 2012.  If such projections prove accurate, global temperatures will rise, possibly significantly above that 2 degree mark, with the destructive effects of climate change we are already witnessing today — the fires, heat waves, floods, droughts, storms, and sea level rise — only intensifying.

Exploring the Roots of Addiction

How to explain the world’s tenacious reliance on fossil fuels, despite all that we know about their role in global warming and those lofty promises made in Paris?

To some degree, it is undoubtedly the product of built-in momentum: our existing urban, industrial, and transportation infrastructure was largely constructed around fossil fuel-powered energy systems, and it will take a long time to replace or reconfigure them for a post-carbon future.  Most of our electricity, for example, is provided by coal- and gas-fired power plants that will continue to operate for years to come.  Even with the rapid growth of renewables, coal and natural gas are projected to supply 56% of the fuel for the world’s electrical power generation in 2040 (a drop of only 5% from today).  Likewise, the overwhelming majority of cars and trucks on the road are now fueled by gasoline and diesel.  Even if the number of new ones running on electricity were to spike, it would still be many years before oil-powered vehicles lost their commanding position.  As history tells us, transitions from one form of energy to another take time.

Then there’s the problem — and what a problem it is! — of vested interests.  Energy is the largest and most lucrative business in the world, and the giant fossil fuel companies have long enjoyed a privileged and highly profitable status.  Oil corporations like Chevron and ExxonMobil, along with their state-owned counterparts like Gazprom of Russia and Saudi Aramco, are consistently ranked among the world’s most valuable enterprises.  These companies — and the governments they’re associated with — are not inclined to surrender the massive profits they generate year after year for the future wellbeing of the planet.

As a result, it’s a guarantee that they will employ any means at their disposal (including well-established, well-funded ties to friendly politicians and political parties) to slow the transition to renewables.  In the United States, for example, the politicians of coal-producing states are now at work on plans to block the Obama administration’s “clean power” drive, which might indeed lead to a sharp reduction in coal consumption.  Similarly, Exxon has recruited friendly Republican officials to impede the efforts of some state attorney generals to investigate that company’s past suppression of information on the links between fossil fuel use and climate change.  And that’s just to scratch the surface of corporate efforts to mislead the public that have included the funding of the Heartland Institute and other climate-change-denying think tanks.

Of course, nowhere is the determination to sustain fossil fuels fiercer than in the “petro-states” that rely on their production for government revenues, provide energy subsidies to their citizens, and sometimes sell their products at below-market rates to encourage their use.  According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2014 fossil fuel subsidies of various sorts added up to a staggering $493 billion worldwide — far more than those for the development of renewable forms of energy.  The G-20 group of leading industrial powers agreed in 2009 to phase out such subsidies, but a meeting of G-20 energy ministers in Beijing in June failed to adopt a timeline to complete the phase-out process, suggesting that little progress will be made when the heads of state of those countries meet in Hangzhou, China, this September.

None of this should surprise anyone, given the global economy’s institutionalized dependence on fossil fuels and the amounts of money at stake.  What it doesn’t explain, however, is the projected growth in global fossil fuel consumption.  A gradual decline, accelerating over time, would be consistent with a broad-scale but slow transition from carbon-based fuels to renewables.  That the opposite seems to be happening, that their use is actually expanding in most parts of the world, suggests that another factor is in play: addiction.

We all know that smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, or consuming too much alcohol is bad for us, but many of us persist in doing so anyway, finding the resulting thrill, the relief, or the dulling of the pain of everyday life simply too great to resist.  In the same way, much of the world now seems to find it easier to fill up the car with the usual tankful of gasoline or flip the switch and receive electricity from coal or natural gas than to begin to shake our addiction to fossil fuels.  As in everyday life, so at a global level, the power of addiction seems regularly to trump the obvious desirability of embarking on another, far healthier path.

On a Fossil Fuel Bridge to Nowhere

Without acknowledging any of this, the 2016 EIA report indicates just how widespread and prevalent our fossil-fuel addiction remains.  In explaining the rising demand for oil, for example, it notes that “in the transportation sector, liquid fuels [predominantly petroleum] continue to provide most of the energy consumed.”  Even though “advances in nonliquids-based [electrical] transportation technologies are anticipated,” they will not prove sufficient “to offset the rising demand for transportation services worldwide,” and so the demand for gasoline and diesel will continue to grow.

Most of the increase in demand for petroleum-based fuels is expected to occur in the developing world, where hundreds of millions of people are entering the middle class, buying their first gas-powered cars, and about to be hooked on an energy way of life that should be, but isn’t, dying.  Oil use is expected to grow in China by 57% between 2012 and 2040, and at a faster rate (131%!) in India.  Even in the United States, however, a growing preference for sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks continues to mean higher petroleum use.  In 2016, according to Edmunds.com, a car shopping and research site, nearly 75% of the people who traded in a hybrid or electric car to a dealer replaced it with an all-gas car, typically a larger vehicle like an SUV or a pickup.

The rising demand for coal follows a depressingly similar pattern.  Although it remains a major source of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change, many developing nations, especially in Asia, continue to favor it when adding electricity capacity because of its low cost and familiar technology.  Although the demand for coal in China — long the leading consumer of that fuel — is slowing, that country is still expected to increaseits usage by 12% by 2035.  The big story here, however, is India: according to the EIA, its coal consumption will grow by 62% in the years surveyed, eventually making it, not the United States, the world’s second largest consumer.  Most of that extra coal will go for electricity generation, once again to satisfy an “expanding middle class using more electricity-consuming appliances.”

And then there’s the mammoth expected increase in the demand for natural gas.  According to the latest EIA projections, its consumption will rise faster than any fuel except renewables.  Given the small base from which renewables start, however, gas will experience the biggest absolute increase of any fuel, 87 quadrillion BTUs between 2012 and 2040.  (In contrast, renewables are expected to grow by 68 quadrillion and oil by 62 quadrillion BTUs during this period.)

At present, natural gas appears to enjoy an enormous advantage in the global energy marketplace.  “In the power sector, natural gas is an attractive choice for new generating plants given its moderate capital cost and attractive pricing in many regions as well as the relatively high fuel efficiency and moderate capital cost of gas-fired plants,” the EIA notes.  It is also said to benefit from its “clean” reputation (compared to coal) in generating electricity.  “As more governments begin implementing national or regional plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas may displace consumption of the more carbon-intensive coal and liquid fuels.”

Unfortunately, despite that reputation, natural gas remains a carbon-based fossil fuel, and its expanded consumption will result in a significant increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, the EIA claims that it will generate a larger increase in such emissions over the next quarter-century than either coal or oil — a disturbing note for those who contend that natural gas provides a “bridge” to a green energy future.

Seeking Treatment

If you were to read through the EIA’s latest report as I did, you, too, might end up depressed by humanity’s addictive need for its daily fossil fuel hit.  While the EIA’s analysts add the usual caveats, including the possibility that a more sweeping than expected follow-up climate agreement or strict enforcement of the one adopted last December could alter their projections, they detect no signs of the beginning of a determined move away from the reliance on fossil fuels.

If, indeed, addiction is a big part of the problem, any strategies undertaken to address climate change must incorporate a treatment component.  Simply saying that global warming is bad for the planet, and that prudence and morality oblige us to prevent the worst climate-related disasters, will no more suffice than would telling addicts that tobacco and hard drugs are bad for them.  Success in any global drive to avert climate catastrophe will involve tackling addictive behavior at its roots and promoting lasting changes in lifestyle.  To do that, it will be necessary to learn from the anti-drug and anti-tobacco communities about best practices, and apply them to fossil fuels.

Consider, for example, the case of anti-smoking efforts.  It was the medical community that first took up the struggle against tobacco and began by banning smoking in hospitals and other medical facilities.  This effort was later extended to public facilities — schools, government buildings, airports, and so on — until vast areas of the public sphere became smoke-free.  Anti-smoking activists also campaigned to have warning labels displayed in tobacco advertising and cigarette packaging.

Such approaches helped reduce tobacco consumption around the world and can be adapted to the anti-carbon struggle.  College campuses and town centers could, for instance, be declared car-free — a strategy already embraced by London’s newly elected mayor, Sadiq Khan.  Express lanes on major streets and highways can be reserved for hybrids, electric cars, and other alternative vehicles.  Gas station pumps and oil advertising can be made to incorporate warning signs saying something like, “Notice: consumption of this product increases your exposure to asthma, heat waves, sea level rise, and other threats to public health.”  Once such an approach began to be seriously considered, there would undoubtedly be a host of other ideas for how to begin to put limits on our fossil fuel addiction.

Such measures would have to be complemented by major moves to combat the excessive influence of the fossil fuel companies and energy states when it comes to setting both local and global policy.  In the U.S., for instance, severely restricting the scope of private donations in campaign financing, as Senator Bernie Sanders advocated in his presidential campaign, would be a way to start down this path.  Another would step up legal efforts to hold giant energy companies like ExxonMobil accountable for malfeasance in suppressing information about the links between fossil fuel combustion and global warming, just as, decades ago, anti-smoking activists tried to exposetobacco company criminality in suppressing information on the links between smoking and cancer.

Without similar efforts of every sort on a global level, one thing seems certain: the future projected by the EIA will indeed come to pass and human suffering of a previously unimaginable sort will be the order of the day.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

Although there have long been signs of opposition to the divisive rule of Turkish President Erdogan and his Islamist AKP, few really expected the military to attempt a coup on 15 July which has now left 265 dead and 2,800 “coup plotters” from the country’s military arrested in the immediate aftermath of the dramatic events.

It soon became all too clear as the night turned to day that there was little appetite among the Turkish people for another coup.

Indeed, rather than any popular support for the rebellious soldiers, the people took to the streets to show their anger at what was taking place supposedly in the name of freedom, democracy and secularism – the fine sentiments used by the coup leaders in the short statement issued that to justify their extraordinary if short lived action.

The ruling AKP’s attempt right away to lay the blame on the Gulen movement for instigating the coup seems highly implausibly given that Fethullah Gulen is a manifestation of political Islam and as such not a supporter of the secularist ideals expressed by the coup leaders. The Gulen movement, led by a wealthy exiled cleric, has become the knee-jerk bogeyman in Turkish politics and is immediately blamed for anything that goes wrong in the country since Gulen’s public fall out with Erdogan over corruption scandals a few years ago.

The 15 July coup failed because the Turkish people were simply unconvinced that they would benefit in any way from yet another period of military rule and given the record of coups in the country’s history that is entirely unsurprising.

As soon as events began unfolding, the pro-Kurdish HDP quickly issued a strong statement condemning the coup and calling for the immediate restoration of democratic politics.

The only certain method to remove a political leadership is by democratic means backed up by mass involvement of the people.

A coup, no matter how well planned, is unlikely to succeed for very long unless it can command popular support however tyrannical the government it is seeking to remove might be.

The aftermath and repercussions of this failed coup in Turkey pose tremendous dangers for the people, not least in the drift into far more authoritarian rule. It is inevitable that Erdogan will use the coup to his own advantage and he allegedly called it a “gift from Allah”.

There are already calls for a return to the death penalty.

Reports of Erdogan supporters beheading soldiers in public and film of screaming crowds stamping on the bodies of soldiers who were trying to surrender expose the atavistic sentiments for revenge that the coup seems to have unleashed as a backlash.

The ugly scenes are all too clearly reminiscent of the cruelties carried out by ISIS terrorists.

These are dark times for Turkey and the wave of revenge is likely to have consequences outside the borders of the country in neighbouring Syria and beyond. The Islamist terrorists whom Ankara has long been accused of supporting have just been given a huge confidence boost.

The opposition to Erdogan and the AKP are likely to come under increased pressure and will face more fierce attacks from a government whose confidence is strengthened by its success in defeating the attempt to oust it.

The prosecutions of people in the media and political activists are likely to continue without a break.

As of the Saturday afternoon following the failed coup, state prosecutors had issued arrest warrants for 140 Constitutional Court members and 48 members of the Council of State for alleged participation in the plot to unseat Erdogan.

There is little likelihood that the moves to prosecute the HDP MPs, already under way following the lifting of their parliamentary immunity, will be slowed down. The measures might even be escalated.

Exercising restraint will be viewed as a weakness and Erdogan will not want to show any more signs that he is not in full control.

On the contrary, he will want to demonstrate unequivocally that he is in the driving seat.  And of course, magnanimity was never one of the character traits for which the autocratic president is famed.

There must be real fears that the war against Kurdish communities will be taken to a new more brutal level with early reports suggesting that military actions in the southeast are being stepped up.

Within this new far more dangerous context for Turkey and the potential spill overs on its neighbours,  support for a democratic, inclusive, secular Turkey is now more urgent than ever and an end to the Kurdish conflict will remain a central challenge to the nation and its political leaders.

Throughout his political ascendancy Erdogan has shown that he totally lacks the vision to heal the wounds festering in Turkish society. The prospects that he will use the current crisis to centralise more powers into his own hands are alarming. A triumphant Erdogan seeking “revenge” should fill everyone who believes in democratic norms and the rule of law with a feeling of intense foreboding.

Finally, are coups always such a bad thing? Just a couple of days ago, until it was savagely interrupted by the massacre in Nice, France was celebrating a coup that still defines the character of its country and its people; that is, the storming of the Bastille. The French Revolution started out as a kind of coup.

Many historians also regard the Russian Revolution of 1917 as a coup; but it was one that brought down the hated Czarist tyranny that was never to return.

Looking further back in history, to the England of the 1640s, Oliver Cromwell led a successful coup against the tyranny of Charles I and his “divine right” to rule; that popular resistance headed by Cromwell’s New Model Army during the English civil wars forged Britain’s modern parliamentary democracy and many people today regularly continue to salute Cromwell’s statue which stands outside Parliament in all its glory. So coups of themselves are not necessarily the worst option and indeed coups that fail can bring about far worse consequences than those coups that succeed.

It remains to be seen whether Turkey’s tyrannical President Erdogan will be strengthened or weakened in the long term following the recent failed coup in that country.

David Morgan is a supporter of Peace in Kurdistan campaign.

Normally, when the head of the FBI under one President says something like “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”, as the FBI reported regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails, that would be the end of the matter; but Clinton actually still isn’t off the prosecutorial hook of this criminal case, unless and until she becomes President herself.

The decision as to whether or not to prosecute her on this matter is not made by the FBI Director, but by the Attorney General. The current one, Loretta Lynch, was appointed by (and holds her job at the discretion of) the man who has endorsed Ms. Clinton to become his own successor: the current U.S. President, Barack Obama. If Clinton doesn’t become the next President, the next Attorney General won’t be appointed by Clinton, and that person will then be making any decision as to whether or not to present the Clinton emails-case to a grand jury; and, if an indictment results, then to present it to a trial jury.

Even the Obama appointee to be the FBI’s chief, Mr. Comey, introduced his statement there, by acknowledging that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.” As regards his opinion that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” reasonable prosecutors already have brought such cases, and they have won convictions onthese cases. So, just based on that record, Mr. Comey clearly lied there.

The independent journalist who goes by the pseudonym “Tyler Durden” headlined, only a day after Mr. Comey on July 5th exonerated Ms. Clinton, “Meet Bryan Nishimura, Found Guilty For ‘Removal And Retention Of Classified Materials’,” and that conviction was won on the same statute for which Comey as Clinton’s would-be policeman, jury, and judge, has peremptorily exonerated her (exonerated his own next boss if she becomes President). “Durden,” at his famous “Zero Hedge” site, noted: “Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom [California], who pleaded guilty to ‘unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials’ without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t@DavidSirota).” He linked to this case. If that’s not the spitting-image of what Clinton was investigated by the FBI for, then nothing is — but Nishimura did far less of that crime than Clinton did — and yet he was sentenced “to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.” As America’s President, Ms. Clinton wouldn’t even qualify to receive the CIA’s daily national security brief. But, according to Mr. Comey, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” He simply lied.

Furthermore, even before Comey had announced Clinton’s exoneration, Josh Gersten at Politico had already headlined on 27 May 2016, “Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails”, and he reported that, “A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus. … To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.”

However, even Mr. Comey noted in his statement of exoneration of Ms. Clinton, that, among the tens of thousands of Clinton’s emails that were able to be recovered after she had tried to destroy them all, were the following:

 “Eight of those  chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were ‘up-classified’ [by the State Department during its reconstruction of her email record] to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.”

Some of the emails that Clinton had tried to destroy had, in fact, been marked “Confidential,” “Secret,” and even “Top Secret.”

Consequently, when Politico’s reporter, Mr. Gersten, exonerated Clinton by saying (and leaving it at that), “Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved,” he was quoting (without even challenging) a liar. That standard (Hillary’s having been sending and receiving information that was classified at the time) was reported by Mr. Comey to have actually been met, for her prosecution — Comey simply chose to deny that reality, by then saying, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” He undeniably lied.

On July 6th (the same day as the report from “Tyler Durden”), the Hillary Clinton propaganda-site Slate headlined, from their Fred Kaplan, “The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Was Totally Overblown: We learned nothing new from the investigation or James Comey’s statement.” He wrote:

“Did she commit a crime? Would anyone else — a lower-ranking official, someone who’s not a presidential candidate, someone who’s not named Clinton — have been charged with a crime? Absolutely not. And Comey said as much. ‘Our judgment,’ he said, ‘is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.’ In the annals of the Justice Department’s history, he went on, ‘we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts’.”

That type of ‘reporting’ is called stenographic ‘journalism’: it’s exactly what America’s press did with regard to ‘Saddam’s WMD,’ for which fabricated reason we invaded Iraq in 2003. Stenographic ‘journalism’ is still the U.S. norm. The American press hasn’t changed since then.

On July 9th, Salon bannered “DOJ veterans weigh in on FBI Director James Comey’s handling of Clinton email probe”, and reported many serious irregularities — and false assertions by Comey — in the FBI Director’s handling of this matter.

However, the huge scandal of the FBI’s handling of this matter goes far deeper than any of this, because the real mega-scandal here is that the FBI were extremely selective in regards to what federal criminal laws they would investigate her for having possibly broken. There are at least six federal criminal laws which accurately and unquestionably describe even what Ms. Clinton has now publicly admitted having done by her privatized email system, and intent isn’t even mentioned in most of them nor necessary in order for her to be convicted — the actions themselves convict her, and the only relevance that intent might have, regarding any of these laws, would be in determining how long her prison sentence would be.

I have already presented the texts of these six laws (and you can see the sentences for each one, right there), and any reader can easily recognize that each one of them describes, without any doubt, what she now admits having done. Most of these crimes don’t require any intent in order to convict (and the ones that do require intent are only “knowingly … conceals,” or else “with the intent to impair the object’s … use in an official proceeding,” both of which “intents” would be easy to prove on the basis of what has already been made public — but others of these laws don’t require even that); and none of them requires any classified information to have been involved, at all. It’s just not an issue in these laws. Thus, conviction under them is far easier. If a prosecutor is really seeking to convict someone, he’ll be aiming to get indictments on the easiest-to-prove charges, first. That also presents for the prosecutor the strongest position in the event of an eventual plea-bargain. As Alan Dershowitz said, commenting on one famous prosecution: “They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case.” Comey didn’t. His presentation was simply a brazen hoax by him. That’s all.

That’s the real scandal, and nobody has been writing about it as what it is — a hoax. But what it shows is that maybe the only way that Clinton will be able to avoid going to prison is by her going to the White House. Either she gets a term in the White House, or else she gets a (much longer) term in prison — or else our government is so thoroughly corrupt that she remains free as a private citizen and still above the law, even though not serving as a federal official.

If Donald Trump doesn’t soon start talking about each one of those six laws, then his supporters should be asking him whether he himself is hiding something, because those six laws make crystal-clear that Hillary Clinton committed serious crimes, such that, even if she is convicted only on these six slam-dunk statutes (and on none other, including not on the ones that Comey was referring to), she could be sentenced to a maximum of 73 years in prison:

(73=5+5+20+20+3+10+10).

Add on others she might also have committed (such as the ones that Comey was referring to, all of which pertain only to the handling of classified information), and her term in prison might be lengthier still.

Motive is important in Ms. Clinton’s email case, because motive tells us why she was trying to hide from historians and from the public her operations as the U.S. Secretary of State: was it because she didn’t want them to know that she was selling to the Sauds and her other friends the U.S. State Department’s policies in return for their million-dollar-plus donations to the Clinton Foundation, and maybe even selling to them (and/or their cronies) U.S. government contracts, or why? However, those are questions regarding other crimes that she might have been perpetrating while in public office, not the crimes of her privatized email operation itself; and those other crimes (whatever they might have been) would have been explored only after an indictment on the slam-dunks, and for further possible prosecutions, if President Obama’s people were serious about investigating her. They weren’t. Clearly, this is selective ‘justice’.

So: the basic question here is: Is this a democracy, at all? Or, are some people just brazenly above the law?

The character and content of this country are at stake here. This issue is important not only as substance, but as symbolism. Of course, that’s also true with any criminal conviction or refusal even to prosecute; but, in Clinton’s email case, the symbolism is simply enormous: it’s a bold statement, to the entire world, about today’s America, and about whether this government’s routine pontifications, regarding other nations’ not being “democratic,” are little — if at all — more than a very black pot deriding some kettle for not being sufficiently white. A crony-capitalist country is in no moral position to dictate anything to the rest of the world. Hiding what it is (a foul oligarchy), only makes what it is, even worse, and more dangerous. Its allies — in NATO, the EU, and elsewhere — are then members of an international gang, which has no justifiable reason even to exist, and which is incredibly harmful not only to their own people, but to all nations. And, if the next U.S. President refuses to prosecute this case, then the continuation of hiding it, the continuation of that cover-up, will not only be blatant; it will show, to the entire world, that nothing short of a revolution can rectify the situation in America. If this country is that crooked at the top, what can it be down below?

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

July 17 is the second anniversary of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and we still do not know the explanation.

Washington and its European vassal politicians and media instantly politicized the event: The Russians did it. End of story.  After 15 months of heavy anti-Russian propaganda had imprinted the message on peoples’ minds, the Dutch Safety Board issued its inconclusive report.

By then, it was irrelevant what the report said. Everyone already knew that “the Russians did it.”

I remember when pre-trial media accusations resulted in dismissed cases.  Anyone declared guilty prior to presentation of evidence and conviction was considered to have been convicted in advance and unable to receive a fair trail.  Such cases were dismissed by judges.

Washington’s story never made any sense.  Neither Russia nor the separatists in the Donetsk region had any reason to shoot down a Malaysian airliner. In contrast Washington had enormous incentives as Washington’s propaganda machine could place the blame on Russia and use the incident to compel European governments to accept Washington’s sanctions placed on Russia.

It worked for Washington. Washington successfully used the incident to wreck Europe’s political and economic relationships with Russia.

Four months into the anti-Russian propaganda campaign, a website called Bellingcat, claiming to be an open source site for citizen journalists, but which could be a MI-5, MI-6, or CIA front, issued a report that the Buk missile was fired by a Russian unit, the 53rd Buk Brigade, based in the Russian city of Kursk. This allegation exposed the propaganda for what it is.

Whereas it is possible that separatists unfamiliar with the Buk weapon system could accidentally shoot down a civilian airliner, it is not possible for a Russian military unit to make such a mistake.

Moreover, it is unclear why separatists or the Ukrainian government would have any reason to use Buk missiles in their conflict. The separatists have no air force. The Ukrainians attack the separatists at ground level with ground attack aircraft and helicopters, not with high altitude bombing. The Buk missile is a high altitude missile. The only way the separatists could have acquired Buk missiles is by overrunning and capturing Ukrainian positions that for unfathomed reasons had deployed Buk missiles.

It seems to me that if a Buk missile was present in the conflict area, it was moved there for a reason unrelated to the conflict.

A European air traffic controller said that MH-17 and the airliner carrying Russian President Vladimir Putin were initially on the same course.  Possibly Washington and its vassal in Kiev thought MH-17 was Putin’s plane and destroyed the Malaysian flight by mistake.

In order to avoid the consequences of such a provocation, the Russian government would deny that Putin’s plane was on a similar course.

Even the Western presstitute media reports that separatists found the Malaysian airliner’s recorders, or black boxes, and turned them over to the investigation and that the recorders had not been tampered with. If the separatists were responsible for the attack, why would they hand over evidence against themselves?

Why does Kiev refuse to release the communications between Ukrainian air traffic control and MH-17?  Why was a civilian airliner routed over a combat zone?  The Dutch report does not answer these questions. Washington prevented all answers in conflict with its propaganda.

Only Washington, whose presstitutes can be relied on to control the explanations for Washington, and Washington’s vassal in Kiev had anything to gain from downing the airliner.  Whether intentional or an accident, the downing of MH-17 was used to blacken Russia and to convince the EU to go along with Washington’s economic sanctions and military moves against Russia.

As the Romans always asked:  “Who benefits?”  The answer to that question tells you who did it.

The fall-out from last week’s failed coup d’etat in Turkey has been more gruesome than many imagined, as pro-government AKP and Muslim Brotherhood suppoters have taken to the streets to administer an ‘ISIS-like’ brand of justice, apparently, doing so on behalf of the ruling party.

What many feared would happen has already come to fruition: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has moved ahead with a brutal crack-down on dissent in further consolidation of power.

A massive purge of the President’s political opposition began from Saturday morning, with orders issued for the round-up of at least 3,000 troops to date who are suspected of playing a role in the coup plot, along with a further 2,700 arrest warrants issued for judges – a clear sign that no one will be offered a fair defense or trial by the Erdogan government. In total 6,000 people have been arrested on suspected treason charges. That number is expected to grow by Monday.

The President, who often invokes a political brand of Islam, proceeded to invoke God while administering the ongoing purge:

“This uprising is a gift from God to us because this will be a reason to cleanse our army.”

As 21WIRE reported yesterday, the embattled Turkish President and his party, have ignited street violence through their network of politically-affiliated Imams in Mosques, effectively deploying the President’s street army of AKP supporters and Muslim Brotherhood followers, to hunt down and punish any military and civilian dissidents. On top of that, the government has appeared to have issued ‘stand down’ orders to police forces, regarding and AKP and Muslim Brotherhood ‘street justice’, and thus allowing the torturing and public slaughtering of any unarmed, low-level military employees.

This amounts to state-sanctioned mobs exacting violent political retribution – not unlike the US-backed, violent NeoNazi street mobs in the Ukraine which were unleashed to carry out political lustration under the newly installed fascist-oriented government in Kiev. What makes the scene in Turkey more dangerous though, is the injection of a radical pseudo-religious agenda being fostered by the Erdogan leadership.

Other reports are also suggesting that pro-government Islamist mobs have also carried out street beheadings of low-level military:

“A Turkish soldier has reportedly been beheaded on Istanbul’s Bosphorus Bridge by a pro-government mob. Graphic video footage and images online show the soldier lying on the ground surrounded by a pool of blood.” Watch:

The following is a brief news report and images supplied by the online news agency AMN…

Harrowing scenes are reported by the world’s media as soldiers are beaten, tortured and murdered in open streets all around Turkey today.

The aftermath of the military coup that began last night is proving to be quite bloody as horrific scenes takes place by Islamist Erdogan supporters all around Turkey today.

The police are reported to be allowing it to happen without intervention…

Massey University in New Zealand says it has received funding to investigate whether there will be any adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation to human health caused by 5G networks.

The project “Analysing Harmful Electromagnetic Exposure due to Future Millimeter Wave Transmissions” is funded by the Lottery Health Research Fund and will be carried out over 2016-2017.

“If the future wireless signals are found to be harmless to the human health, this project would build consumer confidence in the future telecommunication services. However, if this project shows that the 5G network leads to, or potentially may lead to adverse health impacts, the industry would be required to modify the underlying wireless technology to ensure the human wellbeing,” said Faraz Hasan, principal investigator.

“With some industry giants predicting 50 billion connected devices by 2020 and with the employment of much higher transmission frequencies proposed for the 5G rollout, it is essential to determine how the future of telecommunications will affect the health of its users,” Hasan said in the announcement.

In the U.S, Light Reading points out the FCC keeps tight limits on the antenna power limits allowed for different fixed and mobile applications; however, carriers are starting to ask the agency if they can increase the amount of Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP), or peak antenna gain, used for millimeter wave applications.

Last year, researchers at NYU Wireless advocated for new safety metrics that are based on body temperature rather than the standard power density. Theirpaper, titled “The Human Body and Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communication Systems: Interactions and Implications,” was chosen as the best from several hundred entries at the 2015 IEEE Conference on Communications. Their study used four models representing different body parts (both clothed and unclothed) to evaluate the thermal effects of mmWave radiation on humans.

Their simulation showed the steady state temperature increases — even of clothed parts with less blood flow such as the forehead of a person wearing a hat — are negligible compared with the environmental temperature variations when the exposure intensity is similar to that likely to be used in a next-generation cellphone.

The Massey University researchers will collaborate with India’s Birla Institute of Technology and Auckland University of Technology.

For more:
– see this Massey News article
– see this Light Reading article

Connecting The Three Pieces

Each of the three forces described above have their own specific uses in the US’ destabilization template against Zimbabwe, but on their own, they’re insufficient to produce the desired result. Therefore, the US has consolidated them together via the Color Revolution coordination mechanism and is indirectly multi-managing their activities for maximum effect. Mawarire is the media-friendly face of the Color Revolution and the ‘bait’ for attracting faith-based individuals out into the street. His predictable arrest means that he’ll become a global “democracy” icon in the coming weeks and be exploited by hostile Western governments as part of their information warfare operations against Mugabe. The more successful that Mawarire’s ‘martyrdom’ and the corresponding Western media aggression around it are, the more probable it is that masses of people will flood into the streets and join his Color Revolution, thus intensifying the economic civil war by grinding the capital’s commerce to a halt.

In response to expected provocations on the side of the “opposition”, the military and related security forces will probably be ordered to disband the anti-government manifestations, but they might be hesitant to do so if this means that they must clash with the respected ZNLWVA veterans. Even if they faithfully carry out their duties, the Western media-manipulated and decontextualized image of young soldiers/police arresting independence-era veterans or forcible defending themselves from their attacks (“an unprovoked assault on democratic protesters”, in Western parlance) could be enough to push segments of society over the edge and into violent insurgency against the government. Some servicemen might join them out of ‘solidarity’ with their ‘fellow soldiers’, which could damage the military’s unity and significantly increase the capacities of the anti-government guerrillas in any forthcoming Unconventional War, whether waged in the urban areas, the rural ones, or both.

Tsvangirai The Placeholder:

Even though it seems like Color Revolution veteran and “opposition” leader Tsvangirai is the man who the US intends to replace Mugabe, chances are that his only real purpose would be to serve as a temporary placeholder until someone more suitable is chosen, whether out of the ‘opposition’ ranks or as a co-opted politician from the ruling party. This forecast isn’t just speculation, though, because it’s already been confirmed by the politician himself that he’s suffering from colon cancer, which caused his intra-party rivals to right away demand that he resign due to his health concerns. He probably won’t do that until the Color Revolution ends, whether with him sitting in power or in a jail cell, because the US understands that the misled portions of the Zimbabwean citizenry which are actively supporting him need a familiar and “trusted” face to rely on during this time. Mawarire the pastor is only useful for being a symbol of resistance and for his potentially magnetic pull among the religious community, whereas it’s Tsvangirai whom the agitated masses and their ZNLWVA allies expect to lead them after Mugabe’s possible fall.

There’s of course a chance that this politician would remain in office if he and his covert American backers are successful in overthrowing the Zimbabwe’s President, but the cloak-and-dagger nature of the country’s politics (whether among the ruling party or the ‘opposition’) means that it can’t fully be discounted that he’ll be pushed out by his own allies with time. The fact that intra-organizational pressure was already building on the cusp of the Color Revolution’s commencement proves just how disunited the US’ main proxy network in the country really is, but if Tsvangirai finds a way to fend them off or reach some sort of secret agreement for a future power transfer once he’s in office, they might end up rallying behind him with increased passion and effectiveness. For now, though, one shouldn’t dismiss the theory that Tsvangirai is just a placeholder for an unnamed (and possibly yet-to-be-designated) politician who could end up replacing him (whether voluntarily, through intra-party manipulation, or by force) shortly after he seizes power.

Unzipping Zimbabwe’s Unity:

Zimbabwe might come off as a unified country with a strong sense of patriotism, but beneath the surface hangs the disturbing prospect of ethnic tensions exploding between its two largest identity groups, the Shona and the Ndebele. The Shona represent the vast bulk of Zimbabwe’s population at around 80%, while the Ndebele constitute most of the remaining 20%. Mugabe is a Shona, and his pro-Soviet Zimbabwean African National Union (ZANU) was composed mostly of his fellow tribesmen who largely operated out of their northern homeland during the Independence War, while his rival revolutionaries, the pro-Chinese Zimbabwean African People’s Union (ZAPU) led by Joshua Nkomo, had a large Ndebele component and were mostly active in their own western homeland.

After the end of white minority rule and Mugabe’s election in 1980, ZANU cracked down on their ZAPU competitors, accusing them of orchestrating a counter-revolution and behaving as subversive elements. The campaign that followed was termed “Gukurahundi” and it inevitably heavy with the ethnic overtones of the Shona-led ZANU government militarily responding to members of the Ndebele ZAPU opposition. The two sides reconciled in 1987 after ZAPU agreed to disarm and integrate into ZANU, thus forming the Zimbabwean African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) that has gone on to rule to this day.

Red: Bulawayo and the provinces of Matabeleland North and South (Ndebele)
Blue: Harare and the provinces of Mashonaland North, East, and Central (Shona)

The possible scenario of a united Zimbabwe torn apart by Hybrid War dates back to these identity divisions, and there’s a chance that they could return to the fore of the national dialogue, whether this occurs ‘organically’ or through external guidance (potentially with the US utilizing friendly information outlets and/or NGOs). Increasing the attractiveness that foreign actors might have in promoting this plan of civil conflict is the fact that there’s a clear-cut geographical distinction between the two groups. Even though the Ndebele are only about 20% of the population, their traditional homeland of Matabeleland and common area of present habitation accounts for about 33% of the country’s total territory in the western regions. Likewise, the Shona, who are estimated to be nearly 80% of the population, have a traditional homeland of Mashonaland that takes up around 30% of the northern corner of Zimbabwe (though many also live outside of it).

Even though there’s an intermingling of these two populations all across the country, the political-administrative divisions expressed above are typically taken as expressing each group’s respective home territory. The most sparsely and least settled parts of Zimbabwe are in Matabeleland, with the bulk of the country’s citizens living in the central, northern, and eastern reaches of the state. Still, Zimbabwe’s second-largest city of Bulawayo is located in the historically Ndebele-inhabited area of the country, thus proving that this region is certainly relevant to the state’s social framework despite its comparatively smaller total population.

Taking into consideration these geo-demographic factors, it’s not unforeseeable that a militant autonomy or secessionist movement might take root in Matabeleland amidst any chaotic circumstances that arise from a Zimbabwean Color Revolution. The outbreak of Hybrid War in the country could unleash the same sort of ethnic tensions between the Shona and Ndebele as the civil war in South Sudan did with the Dinka and Nuer, all to the benefit of an external actor that either prods this scenario on in the first place or craftily exploits it to its own geostrategic advantage. The promulgation of Identity Federalism in Zimbabwe as a “solution” to this scenario would make the erstwhile unified whole much more easier to control, while an independent Matabeleland could become a pro-American regional base, bearing in mind how the US’ often uses minority populations and newly created weak separatist states as its geostrategic proxies.

Shaking Up Southern Africa

Zimbabwe’s descent into a bloody Hybrid War, complete with anti-government insurgency and ethnic killings, would have serious implications for stability all across the Southern African region. All four of the country’s neighbors would be directly affected by the Weapons of Mass Migration that would be unleashed in the aftermath, as well as by the presence of a failed state adjacent to their borders.

Zambia:

This historically anti-colonial Southern African state is at risk of experiencing its own Hybrid War even without the destabilizing push that a state collapse in Zimbabwe could give it. A general election will be held on 11 August, and incumbent President Lungu is already facing Color Revolution pressure. Recent clashes and the death of an opposition supporter prompted him to suspend the country’s election campaigning for 10 days, and the violence that broke out coincidentally came on the heels of sharp American criticism against his government. The authorities shut down “The Post”, the largest opposition newspaper, late last month on charges that it had run up $6 million in unpaid taxes. The US saw this as an ‘attack on free speech’ and harshly condemned Lungu for ‘silencing the opposition’, demanding that he allow the tax-evading outlet to reopen as soon as possible. Not only did he refuse to do so, but he even cancelled a meeting with the US Assistant Secretary for African affairs. This ‘audacious’ act of independence couldn’t have gone unpunished for long, and it was only just a week later that the ‘opposition’ stoked pre-election violence all across the country in their desperate bid to stir up anti-government unrest.

Lungu isn’t being targeted solely because of his refusal to bow down before the US’ unipolar dictates, though that’s certainly a large part of why Washington is so angry at him. His country, Zambia, is a decades-long mineral-rich partner of China, and Beijing actually built the TAZARA railway through neighboringTanzania in the 1970s as a means of linking together the three partnered states. This close strategic relationship continued in the post-Cold War era, and one could even make the case that the success of TAZARA laid the foundation for China’s future One Belt One Road worldwide policy of infrastructure connectivity, seeing as how it was the first prominent such project that Beijing ever commenced. Nowadays, the Zambian portion of TAZARA is an irreplaceably valuable investment in completing China’s African Silk Road vision of bridging the continent’s Indian and Atlantic coasts. TAZARA is planned to be expanded westward through the North West Railway project that will bring it to the Angolan border, from where it will join up with the recently Chinese-refurbished Benguela Railway and eventually reach the Atlantic Ocean.

In this manner, the Tanzanian Indian Ocean Coast and the Angolan Atlantic one would be connected via their commonly adjacent landlocked Zambian neighbor. Even though there’s a chance of an alternative route going through Zambia to the southern Democratic Republic of the Congo’s region of Katanga, the trilateral Tanzania-Zambia-Angola path seems to be much more reliable due to the serious Hybrid War pressures afflicting Africa’s second-largest country, which was also the scene of the continent’s deadliest war that claimed at least 5 million lives in the 1990s and which still hasn’t been internally resolved in full. Even so, the Zambian route isn’t exactly problem-free either, with the western part of the country being the scene of “Barotseland” disturbances. This scarcely populated territory through which the North West Railway must pass en route to Angola has a complex history with the state, but the general idea is that it was promised some sort of federal-autonomous arrangement around the time of Zambia’s independence, but which was shortly thereafter controversially revoked by Lusaka.

“Barotseland” protesters have pulled off their mission to once more make this issue a nationwide topic of discussion, and some are even trying to pair it with the government’s 2013 decentralization policy in order to suggest a federalized “solution” to this re-emerging problem. Just like with Zimbabwe or any other country that implements any form of Identity Federalism, Zambia’s federal future would be rife with internal discord driven by external manipulation. In accordance with the Law Of Hybrid War, the end goal of this would be to disrupt, influence, or control China’s multipolar transnational connective infrastructure project of the Southern Transcontinental African Route (TAZARA + North West Railway + Benguela) by making its essential middle component hostage to the developing American-influenced political situation in the country. Whether it’s a Color Revolution in the capital, an Unconventional War in “Barotseland”, or a composite Hybrid War throughout all of the country, Zambia is certainly vulnerable to a range of destabilizations, and it might just take the US-orchestrated collapse of Zimbabwe and the resultant inflow of Weapons of Mass Migration to push the country over the edge and catalyze these dark scenarios.

Botswana and Mozambique:

These two neighboring countries are expected to be less directly impacted by any successful Hybrid War in Zimbabwe, though they’ll nevertheless still have their domestic stabilities offset to a certain degree. It’s unclear at this point just how much Botswana would be affected, but it’s a fair to say that it would be compelled to set up emergency refugee facilities along its extended eastern border with its neighbor. It should be reminded that Botswana only has slightly over 2 million people, a quarter of which are estimated to be concentrated around the capital of Gaborone in the southeast. Around 150,000 people also live in the Zimbabwean-bordering town and second-largest settlement of Francistown, so because of its proximity to the area of projected conflict, it’s expected that this city would become the country’s frontline defense in guarding against and responding to Weapons of Mass Migration. Depending on the scale of inflow, Botswana might not be able to fully control its borders, in which case anti-government insurgents might capitalize off of the situation in order to infiltrate the country and set up a network of safe havens. Even though this possibility presently seems remote, in analyzing the residual effects of a Zimbabwean Hybrid War on the region, it can’t responsibly be discounted by any strategist. On a related note, if this happens, then it could be used to ‘justify’ the US’ reported plans to open up an AFRICOM airbase in the southern part of the country, and these prospective regional crises might even be engineered partially on the motive of doing so.

Mozambique stands to be even more drastically impacted than Botswana, mostly because of the simmering conflict that’s re-emerged in that country ever since it discovered some of the world’s largest LNG deposits a few years ago. RENAMO, the Cold War-era rebel group that the US supported in the post-independence Mozambican Civil War, returned to low-scale militancy in 2013. Referred to as the country’s “invisible civil war” ever since, the conflict has persistently remained a challenge that just won’t abate. While there’s no direct evidence to prove it yet, if one understands the US’ global energy imperatives of controlling or denying various resources to others, as well as the CIA’s decades-long documented connection with RENAMO, it’s not at all unreasonable to suggest that the latest violence is being provoked by Washington as a means of interfering with Maputo’s LNG future. It’s predictable that this conflict will eventually intensify the closer that Mozambique comes to exporting its LNG on the global market, but in the meantime, any Weapons of Mass Migration streaming in from a Hybrid War-afflicted Zimbabwe (whether refugees or insurgents) could create a serious domestic crisis in RENAMO’s traditional western borderland area of operations. The government’s response to this prospective set of problems could either ‘naturally’ aggravate the conflict with RENAMO or be manipulated in such a way by self-interested internal actors and/or their external handlers for this end.

South Africa:

Washington ideally hoped that South African President Zuma would have already been deposed by a ‘constitutional coup’ by now and that his country could be the ‘Lead From Behind’ springboard for guaranteeing that the anti-Mugabe mission succeeded, but since he defied the odds and survived the plot earlier this year (unlike his BRICS counterpart Dilma Rousseff), it’s likely that the US intends to target him once again almost immediately after toppling Mugabe. In fact, South Africa has always been the regional crown jewel for American regime change planners, and it’s not unlikely that everything that’s going on in Zimbabwe right now is purposely aimed at eventually destabilizing its southern BRICS neighbor. For the moment at least, South Africa is still in a position to render supportive assistance to its anti-apartheid ally (however limited and/or symbolic it may be), but this could abruptly stop if the liberal Soros-funded “Democratic Alliance” ‘opposition’ pulls off an impressive showing during the 3 August nationwide local elections and expands their power over the rest of the remaining major cities that are still outside of their control, which is what some observers are expecting.

A ruling ANC party spokesman accused the US of fomenting regime change earlier this year, and even though Zuma ‘dodged a bullet’ with his impeachment case, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a ‘Plan B’ for the US to fall back on and that a Zimbabwean Hybrid War concurrent with the upcoming local elections isn’t part of it. The political future of the President and his ANC party are in doubt because of some serious economic and domestic mishandlings, so it’s entirely possible that the pro-American ‘opposition’ will gain some extra support in the next electoral round and gradually strengthen their influence in the country, much to Zuma and his multipolar BRICS partners’ expected expense. With the ‘opposition’ gaining ground and working hand-in-hand with the US’ allied information outlets to craft the perception that they’re on the inevitable ascent to full power, the “Democratic Alliance” can be in a much better position to popularize the concept of Identity Federalism if an out-of-control Zimbabwean Hybrid War destructively spills across the border and produces the conditions for its advancement.

People hold up signs during a large anti-xenophobia rally in Johannesburg which was attended by thousands who marched through the city demanding an end to the violence against foreigners in South Africa. 

The BRICS stalwart of South Africa is existentially threatened by the danger that Weapons of Mass Migration could spark the unitary republic’s dissolution into a collection of quasi-independent tribal/ethnic-based federal statelets. Not only are visible segments of South African society violently xenophobicagainst the influx of African migrant workers that have flooded into the economically promising state over the past two decades, but there are even deep undercurrents of extremely polarized tension among its native peoples. Zulu nationalism was blamed for the xenophobic riots of early 2015, and the failure of South Africa to transcend identity-centric politics poses a very real threat to all other ethnicities within the country such as the Xhosa and Basotho, for example, whether they’re killing one another or fighting within their own groups.

Without the shared enemy of apartheid to unite the country’s disparate range of ethnic-tribal identities, it regretfully looks like some of these groups are at a serious risk of “self-segregating” and dividing the country along their identity lines. Tribalism has always been a civilizational vulnerability for the sub-Saharan African peoples just as sectarianism has been for the Muslim ones, and the rich spectrum of South Africa’s countless diverse identities could be violently divided against one another by external manipulation even easier than the binary Sunni-Shia split was savagely masterminded over recent years. All that it might take to produce this American-anticipated reaction is the large-scale introduction of Weapons of Mass Migration to set off an uncontrollable spate of deadly xenophobic purges that quickly spiral to the point of all-out civil war between the native ethnicities, eventually resulting in the de-facto re-institutionalization of “Bantustans” via the ‘politically correct’ and ‘domestically asked-for’ ‘black-led’ ‘solution’ of Identity Federalism.

Concluding Thoughts

Zimbabwe is at its most vulnerable and weakest point since independence, having been financially ravaged into economic destitution by the US and now on the cusp of descending into a dangerous spiral of Hybrid War violence. The government still has the chance to restore order and prevent the regime change riots from spreading, but it persuasively looks as though it’s at its closest that it’s ever been to state failure. The economy is in doldrums, unemployment is rampant, and people are upset at the authorities for a host of reasons, many of which are actually legitimate and in one way or another directly attributable to the actions of the ruling ZANU-PF party. Nevertheless, the timing of the most recent disturbances coincides with a rumored successionist struggle and the political technologies involved in the ‘protests’ almost exactly replicate those of previous Color Revolutions, so it’s a fair to analytically conclude that the US is launching yet another regime change plot against President Mugabe in order to unbalance Zimbabwe at its most uncertain moment and capitalize off of the strategic run-up to its leader’s inevitable passing. If the US even moderately succeeds in the latest iteration of its Hybrid War campaign, then it could have disastrous consequences for the rest of the Southern African region, spewing Weapons of Mass Migration and other destabilizations at all its fragile neighbors and possibly returning this part of the continent back to its Cold War-ear roots as a frontline geopolitical battlefield.

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the post-graduate of the MGIMO University and author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

“A minority within the armed forces has unfortunately been unable to stomach Turkey’s unity.” -President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Jul 15, 2016

Any aspect of instability in the state of Turkey is going to be greeted with trepidation by those partners who bank on its security role between East and West. The European Union, that rattled club of members who fear the next onslaught against its institutional credibility, have been bolstering Ankara in the hope to keep refugees at bay. There are security exchanges, and promises (always promises) of sweeter deals regarding the movement of Turkish citizens.

A cynic versed in the darker side of such instability would also suggest that a Turkey too stable and hungry for external releases of meddlesome power is hardly in a good way either. The Erdoğan regime has been prone to lashing out with acts of concerted violence, be it against Kurdish rebels or selected anti-Assad forces in Syria. For its role in backing the Western coalition against the Islamic State, albeit erratically, Turkish citizens have also paid a high price.

Such posturing has to have the imprimatur of the military. And they don’t always like it. In its short history, the Republic of Turkey has seen military interference in the political process, a constitutional door that opens in times of crisis. While military matters may not be best vested with military men, the suggestion has often been that politics is sometimes best left to the military. The result is that the cat is left guarding the cream.

Several civilian heads have rolled because of that contrivance. In 1960, Adnan Menderes got his marching orders. As Time Magazine noted, “The Turkish army has long scrupulously observed the admonition of the late great Kemal Atatürk that the army should stay out of partisan politics. But it also remembered that Atatürk charged it with guarding the constitution.”

The style of Menderes is worth recounting, offering an assortment of parallels to the current Turkish leadership. Like President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, he courted the rural populations and was rewarded. Like Erdoğan, he supped from the cup of autocracy, irritating cosmopolitan intellectuals and worrying the military in the wings, ever keen to safeguard Kemalist ideals.

Press censorship became one of Menderes’ favourite weapons, while journalists were jailed on flimsy grounds. Despite an ailing economy and a taste for state funds, he managed to win at the ballot box. That outcome was insufficient to curry favour with the suspicious military men, who stepped in on May 27, 1960 to arrest the leader along with hundreds of Democrat Party leaders. For the next 11 months, the Republic was subjected to a trial with a foregone conclusion: a death sentence that Menderes attempted, and failed, to avert.

Hailed as a saving move for democracy, backers of General Cemal Gürsel were sufficiently conned into thinking that a man named President, Premier and Defence Minister would be its saving grace. The National Unity Committee, as it was termed, got busy not merely casting the DP into political and legislative oblivion, but purging the military’s own ranks. As a result, 5000 officers were dismissed or forcibly retired; lands from wealthy landowners in eastern Anatolia confiscated and 147 university teachers left without jobs.

Other coups followed. The “coup by memorandum” in 1971, delivered via radio by a newscaster, revealed how the government had again erred, pushing “our country into anarchy, fratricide and social and economic unrest.” In 1980, the story repeated itself, with the military sages assuming control over chaos.

On Friday, that internal instability manifested itself when Turkish personnel blocked bridges over the Bosphorus strait in Istanbul. Low flying jets and helicopters were to be seeing flying over Ankara. Tanks were also witnessed at the main airport.

Where was Erdoğan? Rumours were spun that he was on his way to Germany, seeking asylum. Such a suggestion supposedly stemmed from US military sources via NBC News. Having been denied landing rights at Istanbul’s airport, the presidential jet veered to Germany, where NBC suggested he had been refused a request for asylum.

Erdoğan did not waste time finding a presumptive architect in the business, conveying his message via iPhone. Using Facetime, he addressed the Turkish population with his usual non-conciliatory flavour, vowing to eliminate any vestige opposition. “This country can’t be managed from Pennsylvania,” he remarked, pointedly referring to the US-based imam Fethullah Gülen.

On finally making his way back to Atatürk Airport, the president addressed the crowd with various promises of zealous retribution. “This attempted uprising will get its answer from the law and they will be given an answer in the judicial system. They should know that in this country the law will be maintained.” Curiously enough, the sort of language previously used by the Generals when the Kemalist sword starts to rust.

The coup will be a perfect opportunity for Erdoğan to cleanse the now cluttered stables. Its failure will permit him a moment of self-satisfied reflection while speaking about that fragile, if not fictional beast called national unity. The generals will continue to wonder, and wait. “Everyone,” lamented the architect of the 1980 coup, General Kenan Evren, “speaks of national unity, but unfortunately everyone fails to bring it about.”[1]

Note

[1] http://time.com/vault/issue/1980-09-22/page/1/

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

With the world veering closer to a major powers confrontation between Russia and the US, the Global Research News Hour brings in a talk and an interview with prolific essayist Roger Annis.

The Global Research News Hour will be presenting special broadcasts over the summer months. 

Affiliate radio stations are encouraged to air this content as appropriate. 

Past programs are also available for download and rebroadcast.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (58:59)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Roger Annis is a socialist and retired aerospace worker, and a long-time champion for peace and social justice causes. He’s a founder and contributing editor of the website NewColdWar.org and his articles have  appeared at rabble.ca, counterpunch.org, Global Research and his own website: rogerannis.com.

In the first half hour we will hear a talk given by Roger at the Geopolitical Economy Research Group Conference from September of 2015 on the subject of Class and Nation in Ukraine.

video courtesy of Sean Cain and Nicolas Kocay

In the second half hour, we hear Roger talk to Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio about his recent article on the Syrian ceasefire, as well as the belligerence of the Western nations.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (58:59)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in 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.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in 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.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

One of the dogmas of US foreign policy is the so-called Monroe Doctrine dating back to, surprisingly enough, President James Monroe who in 1823 said, in an address before US Congress, that outside powers’ efforts to colonize or exploit Latin American countries would be viewed as acts of aggression by the United States. The sentence above pretty much encapsulates the average American’s understanding of the doctrine.

What is left unsaid is that the doctrine has no legal standing. It is not an international treaty or agreement, and the US Congress has not granted the Presidency a blanket authority to go to war against any external power encroaching upon the US “exclusive preserve.” What is equally left unsaid is Monroe’s quid pro quo: the US would likewise refrain from meddling in European politics, which radically changes the actual meaning of the doctrine. It is not merely an assertion of US dominance over a region, but rather a not reciprocated offer of a sphere of influence division between the US and European powers which actually came close to being codified in the form of the UN Security Council which, by granting veto power to its five permanent members, de facto divided the world into five spheres of influence.

Those days of US restraint and respect for international treaties are long gone. On the one hand, successive US administrations invoke various “open door” doctrines in order to intervene in every corner of the planet, usually with dire consequences, while at the same time seeking to preserve the Americas  for the US to exploit and colonize and deprive the sovereign states of that region the right to choose its allies and economic partners. Naturally, from the perspective of international law, such unilateral actions are untenable, and accepting them would set the precedent of recognizing the US as a privileged international actor, in effect making “American Exceptionalism” an internationally acknowledged reality.

This is the context in which Russian military installations in Latin America ought to be viewed. From the military point of view, their presence is as, if not more, important for political reasons than military ones.

These installations include the Lurdes Radioelectronic Reconnaissance Center which became operational in 1967, collecting intelligence for the GRU, KGB, and the Soviet Navy. Decommissioned in 2002, the site could be made operational should the circumstances require it, with Cuban government’s permission. At the moment there are no plans to do so, however.

In March 2016 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had stated that there are no plans to reactivate Lurdes, ostensibly because the Russian Federation can gather the necessary intelligence by other means. In actuality, the status of Lurdes likely depends on the degree of US military aggressiveness in Eastern Europe. Luckily at the moment NATO, for all its belligerent rhetoric, does not want to go too far in provoking Russia, hence the “rotating” NATO troop presence which would be politically less difficult to back out of than permanent bases.

While the status of Lurdes is frozen, another project, this time in Nicaragua, is moving forward. Russia is establishing a GLONASS navigation system station in the country, a move that instantly led some in the US claim it is a reconnaissance installation. The station is part of a larger package of Russia-Nicaragua cooperation that also entails the provision of 50 T-72 tanks to the country. In the preceding years, and most recently in 2013, Nicaragua has been visited by Russian strategic bombers that also took the opportunity to visit Venezuela.

Collectively, these measures are relatively modest and are not comparable to US initiatives in Eastern Europe. There is certainly no discussion of another “Cuban Missile Crisis” type confrontation. Here one has to keep in mind that Russia is not the only international actor interested in defying the US-imposed quarantine of Latin America.

China has similar interests for identical reasons, namely the need to respond to the US encroachment of its positions around the South China Sea. China’s interest in Latin America has also been evidenced by the discussions of a so-called Nicaragua Canal that would offer an alternative to the US-controlled Panama Canal, an initiative that Washington also strongly opposes. Therefore if the US provocations toward both Russia and China continue, Latin America could very easily become a catalyst for closer security cooperation between the two countries.

Saturday’s “failed” military coup in Turkey, allegedly carried out by networks around the US-based cleric Fetullah Gülen, is likely to strengthen R. Tayyip Erdogan and the Presidency, and provide munition for the continued erosion of rights and liberties, the constitution, the role of the military as an institution that once had the task to protect the secular republic, while it justifies the use of the military against the civilian population. Who benefits?

The attempted military coup in Turkey this weekend was over as swiftly as it began. At least 90 lost their lives, more than 1,050 were wounded, and some 750 soldiers were arrested by Saturday morning, less than 24 hours after it all began. The alleged mastermind is, according to President R. Tayyip Erdogan, the US-based cleric Fetullah Gülen, supported by Gülenist networks.

The 74-year-old Gülen, who is living in a self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania, USA, is known for his close ties to the CIA, NATO intelligence, Turkey’s Deep State, and for having succeeded at having his network infiltrate the highest political parties in European countries.

Thus far very little is known about the mystery officers who had a State TV anchor read out their declaration, stating that Turkey now would be governed by a “Pace Council”. Even fewer facts are known about what exactly happened and about who exactly it was that had planned and managed the failed coup. The only things that can be determined with some degree of confidence are the most probable consequences of the coup and their implications.

Entrenching the Increased Power of the Presidency

Prior to the Presidential Elections in 2014, Soli Ozel, who is a Professor of International Relations at Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey, predicted the increased unitary power of the Turkish Presidency. In his article entitled “What you need to know about Turkey’s presidential elections” professor Ozel correctly forecast that:

“An Erdoğan presidency will change the course of Turkey’s politics. Unless former President Gül assumes the leadership of the ruling AKP and thereby make sit possible for the party to dampen Erdoğan’s ambitions, the presidency will increasingly become the centre of executive power. An extraordinarily skillful, ruthless and widely popular politician, Erdogan has already obliterated Turkey’s meek system of checks and balances. His record over the past three years nearly rendered the judiciary (save for the Constitutional Court) an extension of the executive and he has established a profound state of intimidation throughout the country. … Without any countervailing or restraining power, Erdoğan as president will take Turkey further down the road of electoral authoritarianism. This new authoritarianism will have an Islamic lexicon and it will try to redefine the institutions of the regime based on Islamic rather than secular principles. .. This will be part of its novelty and will go against the grain of 200 years of Turkey’s history of Westernised modernisation, long-resented by the country’s Islamists. The tragic dimension of this election therefore is that most of the voters seem unaware of how fateful the election is for the future course, stability and cohesion of the country”.

Erdogan’s Move Against the Military as Guardian of the Constitution and Turkey’s Role in Syria and Iraq

In July 2013 then Prime Minister Erdogan and his Freedom and Justice Party (AKP) government successfully passed legislation that significantly changed the status of Turkey’s armed forces, ending their role as guardian of Turkey’s secular Constitution.  Erdogan’s amendment of Turkey’s Armed Forces Regulation was widely perceived as a policy coup. The regulation’s Article 35 specified that one of the duties of the armed forces was to protect and preserve the Turkish Republic.

After the July 2013 amendment of article 35, the article states, that it is the duty of the Armed Forces of Turkey to defend the nation against external threats and dangers. The amendment thus reduced the military’s function to that of an instrument, solely for the protection of the boundaries of the nation, but not the protection of the republic. Large parts of Turkey’s secular opposition perceived the amendment as an additional step in a sweeping power grab by the Muslim Brotherhood associated AKP. Both members of Turkey’s secular opposition and members of the military were concerned that the AKP, not unlike the now ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, would misuse constitutional and legislative changes to turn Turkey into a de facto Islamic or Islamist Republic.

The amendment of Article 35 of the Armed Forces Regulation would, arguably, not have been possible without careful preparations that would include the decapitation of secular republicans within Turkey’s officer corps. Over 350 soldiers, including high-ranking officers had previously been arrested on fabricated espionage and coup charges and tries in the so-called Ergenekon and Balyoz trials.

The soldiers and officers would eventually be found not guilty, but the decapitation of the secular republican core in the armed forces of Turkey had succeeded. It turned out that networks around Fetullah Gülen, the alleged man behind the failed military coup, played a crucial role in planting false evidence against the secular republican officers.

Moreover, it is important to note that most of these secular republican officers disapproved of the AKP’s role in the proxy war against the Syrian Arab Republic, in collusion with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and with other core NATO member States.

Turkey’s state sponsorship of the so-called Free Syrian Army, of Jabhat al-Nusrah, the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL or Daesh) and numerous other insurgencies and the involvement of Turkey’s military in this illegal war against Turkey’s secular southern neighbor would have been difficult had the secular core among Turkey’s officers not first been decapitated.

These same secular circles within Turkey’s military and among members of Turkey’s secular opposition had also warned that Erdogan’s and the AKP’s policies would facilitate the breakup of the Turkish Republic and the establishment of a “Kurdish Corridor” as part of a long-term strategy in NATO’s envisioned encirclement of Russia’s southern flank.

The establishment of a Kurdish State with breathing straw access to the Mediterranean. Map plottings by Major (r) Agha H. Amin.

Failed Military Coup in Turkey Strengthens Autocratic Erdogan

Erdogan’s decision to end the ceasefire with the PKK last year, and the violent military crackdown against the PKK as well as against non-combatant civilians in its predominantly Kurdish southeast has led to an alliance with Syrian and Iraqi Kurds that is likely to result in years of conflict and eventually, the breakaway of Turkey’s Kurdish region. It is noteworthy that this crackdown was started as the PKK was ready to agree on a permanent peace.

It is also noteworthy that a person from within the inner circle around former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri disclosed that the final decision to invade Iraq with ISIS was made at the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Turkey in November 2013.

Circles within and close to the AKP government and Erdogan would also become involved in smuggling oil, stolen by ISIS in Syria, via the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, thus enriching and invigorating both ISIS and the Kurdish forces who would fight the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

The currently available, verifiable evidence about this weekend’s “failed” coup is very limited, to say the least. The context and the consequences are, however, indicative of won’t benefit from the failed coup and who will.

President Hollande, after this terrorist attack that has rocked our country, you addressed the nation with emotion and dignity, expressing your compassion for the victims.  We assume you have been well informed as you were able to immediately point the finger of blame at the perpetrators and you called upon France to display unity and solidarity against the “islamist terrorism”. You called upon us to close ranks and to harness all our energies in confronting this terrible threat.

But this entirely legitimate call for national cohesion, when our country is feeling so vulnerable, should not prohibit citizens from questioning your policies. From the day you were elected, you have claimed to be ceaselessly combatting terrorism. But in reality, you appear to be doing exactly the opposite.

Instead of combatting evil you have been focusing your efforts against those who are truly fighting it. You tell us you are fighting terrorism but you never cease your demonization of and campaign against Syria and Bashar al Assad.

You condemned this sovereign state to the horrors of the same criminals who open fire upon our cafes and restaurants, this sovereign state detested by your American-Zionist allies because it refuses to bow down to their diktat. The Jihadist mercenaries were looking for a target and you cynically gave them Damascus.

Image right: Prof. Bruno Guigue

Yes, thousands of young people have been brainwashed by your war propaganda and persuaded to take up arms against this despised state that you dream of bombing into oblivion. It is your foreign affairs minister, Laurent Fabius who launched this mission when he declared that “Bashar al Assad does not deserve to live“ and that the Syrian Al Qaeda [Al Nusra Front] were doing a “good job” in Syria.

You can try to conceal your responsibility, but we all can see now how these attacks committed in France are a direct result of your failed foreign policy. Why are there no attacks in Italy, Argentina or Japan? Are the French being collectively punished for your refusal to co-operate with Syrian intelligence to identify the french jihadists and prevent their return to France?

Do our compatriots know that you expressly forbid the transfer of funds to the majority of the Syrian people living in government held areas inside Syria? Do they know that you have never once expressed your sorrow for the multitude of Syrian victims of Al Qaeda atrocities or that you persist in the imposition of sanctions upon these people enduring relentless mass terrorist attacks?

You decided to play a role in the Syrian conflict and you sugar-coated your involvement with humanitarian pretexts which are now collapsing like a house of cards, exuding the acrid stench of hydrocarbons. You have dragged France into a swamp which should have been avoided at all costs and you have exposed your people to a boomerang effect bringing with it, unimaginable devastation. You have brought home the violence that you and your neo-colonialist allies have unleashed.

Do you think the French will thank you especially once they have unraveled the truth of this dramatic event?

Mr Hollande, when the dust has settled on this drama, and the compassion photo-shoot is over, the patriotic unity celebrations finished, are you once more going to award medals to the bankrollers of terror? Overtly condemning terrorism while covertly entertaining its Saudi sponsors. The US has its Frankenstein in George W Bush, the sorcerer’s apprentice of geopolitical chaos. You are his equal – you are France’s own Frankenstein.

By affiliating France with a mafioso, manipulated, sectarian “rebellion”, thinking you were boxing clever while on the ropes, you have fed the monster that is now extending its tentacles into France. You allied yourself with DAESH while they were fighting Assad but condemned them after the first executions of westerners in Iraq. Thus you nourished resentment among these criminals from whom you seemed to expect greater understanding.

You have been advised by pseudo-experts whose intellectual independence is entirely dependent upon how much you pay them, so its impossible for you to extricate yourself from your errors without being overruled. Instead, you continue to throw dust in our eyes with the “State of Emergency” and to “windmill” your little arms. We are nine months away from the elections where, of course,  you will try to manipulate the facts.

Your legacy will be the rotting fruit of your political ineptitude, the manifestation of your incompetence as a minister who confuses Saddam Hussein with Bashar al Assad, an absurdity that does not even raise a smile on this day of universal grief.

Translation by Vanessa Beeley for 21st Century Wire.

The original article can be consulted at arretsurinfo.ch

Bruno Guigue is a French author and political analyst born in Toulouse 1962. Professor of philosophy and lecturer in international relations for highter education. The author of 5 books including  Aux origines du conflit Israélo-Arabe, l’invisible remords de l’Occident (L’Harmattan, 2002).

The missing 28 pages from the U.S. Congressional Joint Inquiry into intelligence activities related to 911 were finally released to the public. These pages do not reveal a lot of new information but what is new strengthens lines of investigation that need to be followed-up. Here are five examples.

1. The 28 pages say a lot about two men—Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan. The pages hint at the idea that Al-Bayoumi and Bassnan, who sponsored some of the alleged hijackers in the U.S., were Saudi intelligence agents or assets. Although this is not new, the pages also mention that both of them worked closely with the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission (SACM). That should bring investigators back to the WTC security company Stratesec, which held its annual meetings in SACM offices.

2. The SACM was part of the Saudi Embassy run by then-ambassador Prince Bandar. The released pages do a lot of hinting about Bandar’s funding of Al-Bayoumi and Bassnan’s activities in the United States. What is perhaps a revelation is that the men’s wives received money from Bandar’s wife but also that Bassnan received $15,000 directly from Bandar’s account.

3. The pages also reveal that, “several Saudi Naval officers were in contact with the September 11th hijackers.” A related fact that needs more scrutiny is that Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which profited greatly from the 9/11 crimes, had spent over twenty years building and training the Saudi Navy. At the time of 9/11, SAIC was run by Dick Cheney’s protégé Duane Andrews, who was the most knowledgeable person regarding the vulnerabilities of the information and communications networks that failed that day.

4. The released pages also make a lot of insinuations about Abu Zubaydah’s “phonebook.” Zubaydah was the alleged al Qaeda leader captured just a few months after the Inquiry’s report was released. The 28 pages repeatedly mention that his phonebook had several numbers that could be “linked” to U.S. phone numbers. Readers will likely fail to realize that in 2009 the U.S. government retracted its claims that Zubaydah had any association to al Qaeda. That the 9/11 Commission Report depended heavily on Zubaydah’s torture testimony is a fact that was quickly forgotten by Commission and intelligence agency leaders.

5. The Inquiry’s report was built largely on information provided by the FBI and the CIA. The 28 pages show this clearly. What people might fail to question is why the Inquiry would go about investigating intelligence agencies simply by reporting information provided by those agencies. That contradiction was amplified when the Inquiry’s leaders allowed the FBI to intimidate their own panel members by investigating them while they were investigating the FBI. The reasons for these contradictions are probably related to the fact that leaders of the FBI and the CIA are legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.

In the end, the release of the 28 pages reinforces some information that was already available but does nothing to correct the propaganda that the Joint Inquiry produced. The public can learn from it, of course, but that requires looking beyond the propaganda.

The Royal Society is committed to providing unbiased information on scientific issues, writes Steven Druker. But its new guide on GMOs is grossly misleading – glossing over the many dangers inherent to the technology with bland, unsupported re-assurances. The Society must end its partisan promotion of GMOs or risk its reputation as Britain’s premier scientific body.

*        *        *

When it comes to genetically modified crops, the behaviour of the Royal Society has been routinely unroyal.

For more than fifteen years, this august institution has striven to defend the image of these novel products and to denigrate those who have raised concerns; and it has done so with lax regard for evidence or ethics.

Moreover, it has refused to acknowledge the misrepresentations it made or to redress the wrongs it inflicted. I sent the past president of the Society a well-publicized open letter in March 2015 that documented its most significant derelictions and requested that the false statements be corrected.

It also requested that apologies be issued to the scientists whose reputations had been unjustly besmirched. Even though he personally sent me an email acknowledging he received it, no remedial action was taken.

Regrettably, the Society has persisted in its irresponsible behaviour, as an examination of its recently released guide to GM crops makes eminently clear.

That document laments the fact that half the UK’s population feel poorly informed about GM crops, and it purports to address that lack by providing “reliable” and “unbiased”answers to peoples’ most pressing questions – information that’s supposed to enable“rational debate”.

However, despite its lofty pretensions, not only is its presentation consistently biased, a substantial amount of the information it dispenses is actually misinformation.

Obfuscating the unnatural nature of the GM process and ignoring its unsettling features

The bias is evident from the outset, and the authors don’t even provide an honest answer to the initial question: “What is genetic modification (GM) of crops and how is it done?”Their response is substantially misleading because they omit the most unnatural and unsettling features while downplaying the unnaturalness of those they do mention.

In one of the biggest obfuscations, they avoid mentioning that biotechnicians have been inserting foreign DNA into plant genomes in a haphazard manner – and that the insertions not only disrupt the region of DNA into which they wedge but cause disruptions throughout the DNA strand, a phenomenon some scientists call ‘genome scrambling‘. [i]

The authors are equally evasive regarding how the foreign genes are induced to actually function, and they fail to disclose a crucial fact: that inserting a new gene does not in itself endow the plant with the desired new trait. That’s because it’s essential to get the information encoded within the gene expressed into a protein, and in almost every case, that won’t happen without artificial alteration of the inserted genetic material.

Here’s why.

The default condition of most genes is to be inactive and blocked from expressing – which conserves the organism’s energy and prevents proteins from being produced when and where they’re not needed. [ii]

A gene transitions from its closed-down default mode to its active mode through the operation of a regulatory element called a ‘promoter’, a segment of DNA adjoined to the gene that serves as its on/off switch. This switch is finely attuned to specific biochemical signals so that the gene expresses in harmony with the organism’s needs.

Consequently, when a gene is taken from one species and transferred to an unrelated one, the promoter will rarely (if ever) receive signals to which it’s sensitive, and the gene will remain inactive. Hence, before making such transfers, biotechnicians must remove the native promoter and replace it with one that will reliably function in the foreign milieu.

Moreover, to deliver the desired results, the promoter must in most cases not only induce the gene to express, but to boost its expression (and consequent protein production) to an extraordinary level.

For virtually every GM crop on the market, the potent promoter that’s been used to achieve such unusual results comes from a plant virus. Not only does it impel the inserted genes to produce proteins at an abnormally elevated level, it drives the production continuously, regardless of the organism’s needs and completely outside the intricate regulatory system through which its other genes are controlled. This can create serious problems by inducing metabolic imbalances or upsetting complex biochemical feedback loops.

Therefore, given the crucial role played by viral promoters, and the degree to which their employment is unnatural, it’s reasonable to expect that any purportedly balanced account of the GM process would mention them – and to deplore the Society’s utter failure to do so.

Obscuring the disruptiveness of the process that transforms the modified cells into whole plants

The authors are likewise elusive in explaining how an isolated plant cell that has incorporated new genes is subsequently turned into a mature plant.

They say this is possible “because individual plant cells have an impressive capacity to generate entire plants”, but they neglect to disclose that this capacity can only be actualized through a distinctly artificial process – in contrast to natural seeds, which grow into plants spontaneously.

That process is called ’tissue culture’, and although the authors note that it’s employed, they say nothing more about it – which obscures the fact that through its procedures, the cell is “forced to undergo abnormal developmental changes.” [iii] They also becloud the fact that besides being highly unnatural, tissue culture is highly disruptive – and imparts what’s referred to as a ‘genomic shock’ that causes numerous mutations throughout the plant’s DNA.

Thus, the authors’ account of the GM process is notable, not for what it says, but for what it fails to say; and their systematic avoidance of disquieting facts not only causes it to be significantly distorted, but, as will be seen, leads to the distortion of other key parts of their presentation.

Denying the significant differences between GM crops and those bred conventionally

Because the authors acknowledge only the most obvious differences between GM and conventional breeding, while ignoring the lesser-known but more important ones, they’re emboldened to claim that GM is no more likely to entail “unforeseen effects”. But this is flat-out false, and experts who have taken the key differences into account have decisively reached the opposite conclusion. [iv]

For instance, a major report by the Royal Society of Canada concluded that GM is far more likely to induce unforeseen effects, and even a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, like the Royal Society, has consistently endeavoured to promote GM crops, has nevertheless clearly acknowledged this greater likelihood too. [v]

The authors attempt to support their spurious claim by arguing that “all” plant genomes“frequently” receive insertions of new DNA through viral and bacterial infections and through the activity of ‘jumping genes’ – and that these insertions are “similar” to those made via GM, which entails that conventional breeding is just as likely to have unforeseen consequences.

This argument is seriously flawed and significantly misleading. For one thing, every gene that’s inserted into the DNA of an isolated plant cell via GM also becomes integrated within the DNA of every cell of the plant that’s developed from that single cell (and so is integrated into the plant’s entire genome). On the other hand, and contrary to the authors’ assertion, the integration of a gene from a virus or a bacterium into the entire genome of a plant is a rare event.

Although viruses frequently infect plant cells, their genes are seldom inserted into the DNA of the gametes (the sex cells), a necessary step for transferring to the plant’s progeny and becoming established in the genome. Thus, the vast majority of the viral DNA sequences within plant genomes have been there for an extremely long time; and during that time, the plant’s defense mechanisms have inactivated them.

Further, scientists know of only two bacterial species that are capable of inserting their genes into the DNA of plants, and those genes are hardly ever incorporated into an entire genome. There are only three plant species in which such integrations have been observed, and just one is a food crop (sweet potato). Moreover, the bacterial genes in the potatoes have no discernible effect, are being transcribed at low levels, and either may not be producing any proteins at all or are producing very little.

In contrast, the new genes that are added to a plant’s genome via GM not only produce proteins, they hyper-produce them, which could cause hazardous imbalances. And that hyper-production is driven by a powerful viral promoter. Whereas that promoter is not affixed to any of the active genes within the genomes of conventionally bred crops, it’s affixed to one or more active genes within the genome of virtually every commercialized GM crop. [vi]

So not only are insertions of bacterial and viral DNA into plant genomes exceptionally rare, and not only are they dissimilar from the insertions wrought by GM, it is through the GM process alone that new viral DNA has recently and widely entered plant genomes – and this incursion has introduced new risks.

Ignoring biological realities to reach a patently false conclusion

The actual facts about ‘jumping genes’ are likewise at odds with the authors’ claims. In reality, those segments of DNA, technically termed ‘transposons’, rarely mobilize in the absence of extraordinary stress; so most of their current locations have been stable since an ancient era. [vii]

In fact, a GM plant is much more likely to harbour new transposon-induced perturbations than its parent because the GM process tends to activate transposons and get them jumping. [viii] Conversely, pollen-based breeding rarely causes transposons to move. [ix]

The authors’ other allegations about hazards of conventional breeding are equally erroneous. Contrary to their claims, that process hardly ever moves genes into “new unknown places” or introduces new genes that have never been in the food chain. Only GM regularly produces such novel results. [x]

Thus, not only do the authors fail to acknowledge the abundant evidence that documents the disruptive effects of the GM process, they significantly misrepresent important biological realities that they do discuss. Only in this way can they conclude that GM is no more likely to entail unforeseen consequences than is conventional breeding.

In glaring contrast, the expert panel that produced the report of the Royal Society of Canada, who took account of the facts the guide’s authors ignored or distorted, concluded that while pollen-based breeding rarely involves worrisome unintended outcomes, the“default prediction” for every GM crop should be that it entails unintended effects that are hard to predict, could be difficult to detect, and might be harmful to human health.

Which leads to the question of whether GM crops are safe, another issue that the authors of the guide have grievously mishandled.

Declaring the safety of GM crops by dishonouring the standards of science

“Is it safe to eat GM crops?” Of all the questions the guide addresses, this is the most crucial. And it answers with a resounding “Yes.” But this simple answer is simply unjustified.

For one thing, the unequivocal declaration that all GM crops are safe flies in the face of the World Health Organization’s assertion that “it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods”. As the WHO noted, because “different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways” it’s necessary to assess them“on a case-by-case basis.”

Even the Royal Society’s president emphasized the need for case-by-case assessment in comments he released in conjunction with the guide’s publication.

So how do the authors attempt to support their all-inclusive claim? They declare: “All reliable evidence produced to date shows that currently available GM food is at least as safe to eat as non-GM food.” And they assert that “there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any approved GM crop.”

But there has indeed been such evidence, and many studies published in peer-reviewed journals have detected ill effects to the animals that consumed a GM crop. For instance, a systematic review of the toxicological studies on GM foods that was published in 2009 concluded that the results of “most” of them indicate that the products “may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown.”

It also noted that further studies were clearly needed. Another review that encompassed the additional studies that had been published up until August 2010 also provided cause for caution. It concluded that there was an “equilibrium” between the research groups“suggesting” that GM crops are as safe as their non-GM counterparts and “those raising still serious concerns.”

Between 2008 and 2014 there have been eight such reviews published in standard journals, and as a whole, they provide no grounds for unequivocally proclaiming safety. As Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University, observed in a comprehensive examination that was also published in a peer-reviewed journal: “One cannot read these systematic reviews and conclude that the science on health effects of GMOs has been resolved within the scientific community.” [xi]

Yet the authors of the guide purport that it has been resolved conclusively – and that safety is a certitude.

The answer? Dismiss all the research that has detected harm

But to do so, they resort to trickery. They claim that only “a few” studies have stated that a GM food caused harm when in fact there have been many. They then summarily dismiss all these studies as ‘unreliable’. And to justify this wholesale rejection, they argue that each of the studies has been “challenged” regarding its statistical analysis and methodology.

But based on that criterion, most of the studies that underlie their claim of safety are also unreliable, because they too have been challenged. Moreover, while the latter critiques have been reasonable and fair, most of those on which the authors rely have not. [xii]

The unfairness is strikingly exemplified by the attacks that were mounted against a long-term study that yielded disturbing results. In it, a team of university researchers led by Giles-Eric Séralini demonstrated that a GM crop approved by regulators based on a medium-term, 90-day toxicological feeding study caused significant damage to the rats’ livers, kidneys, pituitary glands, and mammary tissues when tested over the long-term (two years). [xiii]

Those results cast doubt on the entire GM food venture because no regulators require tests greater than 90 days, and several GM crops have entered the market without any toxicological testing at all.

So when the study was published in a respected journal in 2012, proponents of GM crops bitterly attacked it and demanded its retraction. But because it was a sound toxicological study, they had to assail it on different grounds. So they focused on the part that reported an increased rate of tumour development in the GM-fed rats, and they argued that too few animals had been used to meet the standards for a carcinogenicity study.

However they disregarded the facts
1. that the research was not designed to meet those standards,
2. that it did fulfill the standards for a toxicological study,
3. that tumours are supposed to be reported if they’re detected during such a study, and
4. that the troubling toxicology results were reliable.

Nonetheless, despite the weakness of their claims, they continued to pressure the journal until, more than a year after publication – and after the addition of a former Monsanto scientist to the editorial board – the study was finally retracted.

But not only did the chief editor acknowledge the adequacy of the toxicological findings, the lone reason he proffered for rejecting the tumour-related findings was that they were“inconclusive”, which is not a valid reason for retraction. Moreover, according to standard guidelines, even if there had been good grounds for retracting that part, the rest of the study should not have been pulled.

That retracted paper is the only study the guide’s authors cite to back their claim that all the ones which reported harm are unreliable. And though they emphasize its retraction, they don’t mention any of the above-noted facts, imparting the impression that none of its findings were sound.

Worse, they also fail to mention one other key fact: that due to the study’s solidity, it was subsequently republished in another peer-reviewed journal. Because that happened almost a year before their guide was released, such an omission is inexcusable – and downright deceptive.

Falsely asserting that no study has cast doubt on the GM method itself

Furthermore, besides unfairly rejecting the studies that reported problems, the authors don’t even describe them fairly. For instance, they assert that none has indicated that“the GM method itself” caused any harm and that all the problems have been attributed either to the specific gene introduced or to particular agricultural practices. But this claim is doubly bogus.

First, in almost all the cases, the researchers couldn’t determine which specific factor or factors caused the harm, so they didn’t pin the blame on a particular gene or herbicide – and the GM process was never absolved.

Moreover, the only study on an herbicide-tolerant GM crop designed to separately assess the roles of the herbicide and the plant found that each caused harm – and that the plant was harmful even when unsprayed. [xiv] And because the exact source of the plant-induced harm could not be ascertained, the GM process may well have been at fault.

Second, at least one major study did specifically link the GM process with harm. And the Royal Society is well aware of that study because it led the sordid attempt to discredit it.

Misrepresenting and maligning Pusztai’s important research

That study was conducted at the Rowett Institute under the leadership of a renowned authority on food safety testing, Arpad Pusztai.

It revealed that GM potatoes producing a foreign protein that’s safe for mammals to eat caused a problematic effect in the rats that consumed them compared to rats that ate the non-GM counterparts, even though the latter had been spiked with the same level of foreign protein within the modified spuds. Accordingly, the researchers concluded that some aspect of the GM process was significantly responsible for the result.

Because this research cast doubt on the process, the technology’s defenders ardently assailed it, with the Royal Society at the forefront. Even before it was published, nineteen of the Society’s fellows disparaged it in an open letter without having seen all the data; and the Society then conducted a biased and unwarrantedly critical review even though the research was still unpublished and the reviewers had not seen all the data either.

So irregular and unfair was the Society’s review that the editor of the prestigious journal,The Lancet, rebuked the organization for its “breathtaking impertinence” and its “reckless”abandonment of the principle of due process. [xv] The Society subsequently put “intense pressure” on the Lancet to deter it from publishing the research, [xvi] and even after that journal published it, [xvii] the Society continued to unjustly malign it. [xviii]

So, having been unable to honestly refute the research, and having also failed to block its publication in a premier journal, the Society now blatantly misrepresents its express findings, falsely asserting they have no bearing on the safety of the GM process itself.

And to aggravate the injustice, it claims that the mere fact it attacked the study robs it of reliability – while ignoring the fact that the attack was demonstrably unfair. [xix]

The Society must choose dedication to science over unprincipled promotion of GM crops

Thus, it’s clear that when dealing with GM crops, the Royal Society has behaved more like propaganda unit than an objective scientific institution.

It’s also obvious there’s an urgent need for thorough reform – especially because the authority of science is being persistently challenged in regard to climate change and other major issues, and when a flagship scientific institution sullies its integrity in one area, it weakens the stature of science across the board.

It’s almost certain that most of the Society’s fellows, including the new president, Professor Venki Ramakrishnan, are unaware of its multiple misdeeds; and if even a few learn the startling truth, they could impel positive change.

On that note, I offer to meet with Professor Ramakrishnan, accompanied by a few knowledgeable scientists, for a cordial conversation to clarify the facts and consider the best way forward. I extended this offer to his predecessor, and had it been accepted, the Society’s subsequent statements about GM crops might well have been worthy of respect.

Hopefully, under Dr. Ramakrishnan’s leadership, the institution will restore its status as an exemplar of science and address the GM issue in an honest and accurate manner.

Steven M. Druker is an American public interest attorney who, as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that exposed how US governmental fraud had enabled the commercialization of GM foods.

Books: Steven Druker is the author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, which was released in March 2015 with high praise from many experts and a foreword by Jane Goodall hailing it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years.”

Notes

i The Royal Society’s guide employs the terms ‘genetic modification’ and ‘GM process’ to exclusively refer to the methods that have been used to create almost all of the genetically engineered crops currently on the market, and those methods are the focus of its discussion. It does not deal with newer techniques such as ‘genome editing.’ Accordingly, this article discusses the GM process on which the guide is focused.

ii A small percentage of an organism’s genes are always in an expressive mode because it’s essential that the proteins they produce be constantly available.

iii A. Wilson, J. Latham, and R. Steinbrecher, “Genome Scrambling -Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants.” Technical Report – October 2004, p. 1 http://www.econexus.info/taxonomy/term/12

iv There are some modes of non-GM crop development that induce a greater number of unpredictable effects than pollen-based reproduction, and many GM proponents claim that two of them (inducing mutations via radiation and via chemicals) have greater potential to do so than does GM. However, not only are there are sound reasons to contest this claim (as explained in my book), because the authors of the guide employ the term ‘conventional breeding’ to denote only pollen-based reproduction, the soundness of their assertions must be judged by comparing the properties of that particular mode with GM.

v The chart on page 240 of the NAS report indicates that the processes used to produces the vast majority of the GM crops that have been cultivated and consumed are many times more likely to induce unintended effects than is pollen-based breeding, even when the effects of tissue culture are not factored in.

vi Because the virus containing that promoter is not a retrovirus but a pararetrovirus, its DNA ordinarily doesn’t even enter the DNA of the plant cells that it does infect, let alone the entire genome of plants. And in cases where it may have been inadvertently integrated into a genome, it would most likely have been inactivated.

vii Fedoroff, N. and Brown, N.M., Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist Looks at Genetically Modified Foods (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2004) p. 103.

viii Transposons can be activated through the disruptions caused by the insertion process and also through those induced by tissue culture. And some scientists think they could also mobilize due to destabilizing effects of the powerful viral promoters.

ix Mendel in the Kitchen (cited in note 6) pp. 104-05. However, Fedoroff points out that wide crosses between “very distantly related plants” can activate transposons.

x This is especially true when the term ‘conventional breeding’ is applied solely to pollen-based reproduction, which is how the Royal Society’s document employs it. And the relevant question is whether GM is more likely than is the natural process to induce unexpected changes in the new plant that were not present in the parent.

xi Krimsky, S., “An Illusory Consensus Behind GMO Health Assessment,” Science, Technology & Human Values, November 2015; vol. 40, 6: pp. 883-914., first published on August 7, 2015

xii For a detailed discussion, see Chapters 6 and 10 of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. Extensive documentation is also provided in GMO Myths and Truths.

xiii Seralini, G.-E., et. al. 2012. ”Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:4221-31 (retracted 2013). Republished in Environmental Sciences Europe 26:1-17 (2014).

xiv That study was Séralini’s long-term test, referenced in note 13.

xv Editorial: “Health risks of genetically modified foods,” The Lancet 353, May 29, 1999: 1811.

Horton, R., “GM Food Debate,” The Lancet 353, issue 9191, November 13, 1999: 1729.

xvi Flynn, L. and M. Gillard, “Pro-GM food scientist ‘threatened editor’,” The Guardian, October 31, 1999. The Lancet’s editor stated that the Royal Society exerted “intense pressure” in an attempt to “suppress publication.”

xvii Ewen, S. W. B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. ”Effects of Diets Containing Genetically
Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestine.” Lancet 354 (9187): 1353-54.

xviii For instance, its Biological Secretary asserted that the Lancet published Pusztai’s research “in the face of objections by its statistically-competent referees.” But because five out of the six referees voted for publication, the Secretary’s implication that more than one objected is false – and the implication that no one with statistical competence voted favorably is almost surely false as well. (Bateson, P., “Mavericks are not always right,” Science and Public Affairs, June 2002.) The unjustness of the Society’s attack is more extensively described and documented in my 2015 open letter to the Society’s president and in Chapter 10 of my book.

xix Although the authors do not specifically mention the Pusztai study, or any studies besides the long-term one conducted by Seralini’s team, their categorical assertions logically encompass it; and those assertions misrepresent it.

The Russian Aerospace Forces have been conducting a series of airstrikes south of Palmyra, purging ISIS manpower and military equipment near the Talilah Crossroad and T-3 Military Airport.

The efforts of Russian warplanes are aimed to lift the ISIS pressure from Palmyra amid the ongoing operations in Aleppo city where the Syrian army seized the Khalidiyeh neighbourhood and most of the Al-Layramoun Industrial Area. Syrian troops seized several sites in Al-Layramoun and set a fire control of Layramoun roundabout. The Syrian army and the Kurdish YPG will likely attempt to link up the front at Beni Zeid.

Meanwhile, clashes are ongoing at the Mallah Farms where the joint militant forces are attempting to re-open the Castello Road. Pro-government sources report that some 250 militants, including 25 field commanders, were killed in the clashes while militant media outlets argue about some gains on the ground in the area.

Al Nusra, the Free Syrian Army and the Turkmen Islamic Party launched a fresh military operation in northern Latakia. The militants seized the Zuwayqat Hills south of Kabbani and are conducting efforts to re-take more hills in the Kurdish mountains.

The Iraqi Security Forces has been moving toward Mosul, the last major ISIS stronghold in Iraq. Iraqi advances over the past few weeks, intensifying over the past few days, on both sides of the Tigris River have squeezed Mosul’s ability to supply ISIS operations to the south and have cut off ISIS militants in Hawija district from Mosul. Separately, the ISF seized the Qayyarah air base, setting there a foothold for further operations. In the coming months, 560 US troops, include engineers and logistics personnel, will be deployed there. US military advisers will be placed with Iraqi brigades and battalions. The control of Qayyarah air base will also allow to increase air support of operations towards Mosul. All these efforts are aimed to conduct a devastating blow to ISIS militants south of Mosul and as result to start a siege of the stronghold.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

The National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health has completed the largest-ever animal study on cell phone radiation and cancer.  The results confirm that cell phone radiation exposure levels within the currently allowable safety limits are the “likely cause” of brain and heart cancers in these animals, according to Dr. John Bucher, Associate Director of the NTP.

One in twelve (12) male rats developed either malignant cancer (brain and rare heart tumors) or pre-cancerous lesions that can lead to cancer.  Tumors called schwannomas were induced in the heart, in the same kind of cells in the brain that have lead to acoustic neuromas seen in human studies.  The NTP says it is important to release these completed findings now given the implications to global health.  No cancers occurred in the control group.

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD of Orebro University says

“(T)he animal study confirms our findings in epidemiological studies of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma among people that use wireless phones, both cell phones and cordless phones (DECT).  Acoustic neuroma is a type of Schwannoma, so interestingly this study confirms findings in humans of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.   In 2013 we called for upgrading the risk in humans to Group 1, the agent is carcinogenic to humans. It is now time to re-evaluate both the cancer risk and other potential health effects in humans from radiofrequency radiation and also inform the public.”  says Hardell.   “This NTP evidence is greatly strengthening the evidence of risk, is sufficient to reclassify cell phone radiation as a known cancer-causing agent, and confirms the inadequacy of existing public safety limits.”

The World Health Organization’s 10-year study of human use of mobile phones concluded there is an increased risk for malignant brain tumors among the heavier mobile phone users, particularly where it is used mostly on one side of the head.  The 2010 Interphone mega-study of cancer in humans using mobile phones found higher cancer risk, but at that time there was little animal testing to support the risks identified in humans.  Now, this NTP study has shown statistically significant risks with a dose-response relationship to the amount of exposure.  It proves that non-ionizing radiation can plausibly cause cancer, not just ionizing radiation like x-rays and puts to rest the traditional scientific argument that cell phone radiation can’t do harm.

Dr. Bucher said the animals’ exposure was about the same as for people who are heavy users of cell phones.  He also confirmed that the exposure of 1.5 W/Kg is lower than currently allowed under FCC public safety limits. Testing on rats is standard in predicting human cancers.

The BioInitiative Report (2014) documents nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies).  This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies). Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies.

Dr. Christopher Portier, formerly with the NTP commented this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear.  “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans”.

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD    [email protected]

A bloody and destructive military coup attempt swept Turkey from Ankara to Istanbul today with reports of limited ground and air combat. The parliament building was reportedly bombed, news stations overtaken by troops including CNN’s Turkish studio, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ordering “rebel” aircraft shot from the sky and the coup-plotters brought to “justice.”

Events are still developing, and regardless of the outcome, Turkey’s political landscape has descended  one step further still into chaos and instability with the prospect of a united and stable Turkey emerging anytime soon very unlikely.

Turkey hosts a myriad of competing factions, including Turkey’s ruling party, Justice & Development Party (AKP), Kemalist nationalists that functions as a military “deep state,” a large Kurdish minority and a tangled web of street and even armed fronts supporting each respective faction.

President Erdogan himself laid the blame for the coup attempt on Fetullah Gulen, a US-based opposition figure who has long sought political power in his native Turkey.

President Erdogan immediately seized upon the violence to declare his intentions to “cleanse” the military of dissents, however, this is likely to only further divide the country and force his political enemies to take even more drastic measures to ensure self-preservation.

Turkey Brought to the Brink

Beyond merely vying for political power, there may be other reasons for increasingly violent infighting across Turkey’s political landscape.

Turkey’s involvement in recent years in neighboring Syria and the ongoing war there has manifested itself within Turkey as a self-destructive policy of cultivating regional terrorism, pitting the nation against its neighbors and powerful economic partners like Russia and even has brought Turkey on multiple occasions toward the brink of wider regional war.

Evidence suggests that terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) are harbored within Turkish territory as well as resupplied, rearmed and reinforced in Syria via Turkey. Russian air operations along the border, stemming this torrent of supplies have been credited with the subsequent collapse of terrorist operations within Syria, further lending credence to accusations of Turkey’s direct involvement in sponsoring regional terrorism.

Turkey’s continued participation in US-led attempts at regime change in Syria has cost Turkey politically, economically and with several major terrorist attacks within Turkey carried out allegedly by the very groups Turkey’s government is supporting in Syria, the nation is clearly suffering in terms of security and stability.

For factions within Turkey’s military itself, charged with the defense and self-preservation of the Turkish state, it must be tempting to intervene in order to reverse this disastrous course.

It must also be tempting for the government of President Erdogan to preempt any such intervention. For the US, who has benefited immensely from Turkey’s cooperation in Syria, it must be tempting for Washington to ensure Turkey remains on its current course, or even accelerate and expand its efforts.

The Coup’s Execution

The lack of any significant leading figure coming forward to lead the coup has led to speculation regarding several possibilities.

First is that whichever faction launched the coup, did so as a means of testing its viability and garnering wider support if possible based on its perceived success. At the same time, they attempted to maintain plausible deniability by not openly leading it. However, by doing so, they may have undermined their chances of success.

The second possibility is that the coup attempt itself was a ruse not intended to succeed, but like many of the other terrorist attacks carried out within Turkey itself, was intended as a means of justifying a further consolidation of power by President Erdogan.

A third possibility is that the coup was indeed organized by Gulen from abroad, as a means of pressuring and coercing President Erdogan further down the destructive path he has brought Turkey down. It should be noted that in the lead up to the coup, President Erdogan uncharacteristically began attempting to mend relations with both Russia and Syria after bringing Turkey to the brink of war with both nations.

Making Sense of the Fallout 

There is the possibility that military factions involved in the coup will continue to undermine, resist and otherwise attempt to overthrow the current Turkish government, even if the current coup itself is fully put down.

It should be remembered that Turkey’s Kurdish minority has waged a low-intensity conflict against Turkey for years with the fighting seeing renewed vigor during the recent 5 year conflict in neighboring Syria.

If the coup was truly led by disenfranchised military leaders, they could end up as a long-term and increasingly potent factor in an already complex regional political and military struggle.

Should President Erdogan double-down on Turkey’s role in US-led regime change operations in Syria, while consolidating power and further diminishing the military’s political role within Turkey itself, the apparently poorly executed coup may indeed have been nothing more than a ploy to redirect Turkey back onto the destructive course President Erdogan has sent it down since 2011.

While the Western media is attempting to portray the apparent failure of the coup as a “victory for democracy,” it is clear that Turkey’s unraveling over recent years will benefit no one and no political institution or principle, including democracy itself.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

International law prohibits the use of food as a weapon. However, the new sanctions declared by the United States drastically inhibit the ability of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to export coal and other commodities on the international market. The new sanctions are part of long history of the United States attacking North Korea’s economy and harming its ability to provide food for the population.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, US leaders have continuously inhibited the ability of the DPRK to maintain its agriculture system while simultaneously accusing the country’s leaders of “starving their own people.” 

Struggling for Agricultural Self-Reliance

The Korean Peninsula has been divided since 1945. The flat lands that can be used for growing food are mainly in the southern part of the country, where tens of thousands of US troops prop up the Republic of Korea.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has control of the mountainous regions.  Socialism has taken hold in the hills and valleys where Kim Il Sung (whose name means ‘becomes the sun’) fought the Japanese occupiers for decades as a beloved folk hero. Kim Il Sung came to lead the Korean Worker Party which calls for Peaceful Re-Unification of the Korean Peninsula, and has established a centrally planned, Soviet-style economy.

While the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has very little arable land, it has plenty of mineral resources. The overwhelming majority of the coal deposits on the Korean Peninsula can be found in the northern regions.

In 1953, when an armistice ended the fighting in the Korean War, one of the greatest challenges facing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was its lack of arable land. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the DPRK constructed a vast coal mining and steel manufacturing apparatus. The DPRK exported coal to other socialist countries in exchange, not just for food, but for the resources to advance its own domestic agricultural system.

Though the DPRK could import food from the COMECON bloc of countries led by socialist governments, this was still a weakness. Kim Il Sung and the Korean Workers Party emphasized “Juche,” or “self-reliance” and pushed the country to carry out the very difficult task of ending reliance on food imports. The stated goal was “food independence.” The DPRK began constructing wheat fields on the sides of mountains, making huge efforts to grow food in mountainous regions and ending the reliance on imported food.

According to the US Central Intelligence Agency, the DPRK achieved food and energy self-sufficiency by the 1970s. David Barkin, a researcher for the Institute for Food and Development Policy, visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 1986 and was amazed at what he saw. He published a short booklet on the DPRK’s agricultural policies, and urged the United Nations to help Latin American countries where food production remained sub-par to adopt an agricultural system similar to what was done in the DPRK.

Though the DPRK became food self-sufficient in the 1970s, the agriculture in North Korea depended on one specific import. In order for the highly complex food system to work, it needed lots of petroleum.

The DPRK imported oil from the Soviet Union, and used it to power its tractors as they climbed through rocky areas, plowing artificially constructed fields. Soviet oil enabled the DPRK to transport food to more remote parts of the country which were far from any arable land.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, along with the various socialist governments of Eastern Europe, the international oil markets were dramatically altered. The DPRK could no longer purchase oil from the Soviet Union. With COMECON no longer in existence, OPEC was dominated by US and British aligned governments, and mandated that the purchasing of oil only be done with US dollars. The DPRK was also unable to continue exporting coal and other products like it once had.

The highly efficient, but oil-dependent agricultural system of the DPRK then came to a grinding halt. The country experienced a horrific food crisis as US sanctions prevented the DPRK from acquiring the US dollars needed to buy petroleum on the international market, and use it to grow food.

While US officials continue to talk of the DPRK “starving its own people” they fail to mention that the food crisis of the 1990s was imposed on the country by economic sanctions and the inability to buy oil. It’s not Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il who starved the Korean people in the early 1990s. The food crisis was created by the policies imposed on the country.

This period is known as the “Arduous March” by Koreans because it was so difficult for the people. The World Food Program, various religious groups, and other charities helped to relieve those who were starving to death. People from the southern part of the Korean peninsula participated in providing humanitarian assistance to their northern countryfolk, and were imprisoned for their efforts under the autocratic National Security Laws of the Republic of Korea. South Korea’s National Security Laws have been widely condemned as inconsistent with international standards of human rights and civil liberties.

Economic Warfare Against the Korean People

As a starvation swept the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, the administration of former US President Bill Clinton reached an agreement with the DPRK which allowed the country to receive some oil imports in exchange for not developing nuclear weapons. The Clinton administration also agreed to assist the DPRK in developing peaceful nuclear energy, as long as arms inspectors were allowed to monitor the sites and ensure that they were not working to develop nuclear weapons.

Following Sept. 11th, 2001, the administration of former US President George W. Bush described the DPRK as part of the “Axis of Evil.” The oil shipments were terminated. At this point, the DPRK withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and began actively developing nuclear weapons—a choice that seems quite logical based on the betrayal of the previous agreement.

Since that time, the DPRK’s agricultural system seems to gradually be recovering and adapting. Political shifts on the global stage have enabled the DPRK to import oil outside of the official OPEC market. Food is also being imported. In 2013, Tom Morrison, an agronomist with the World Food Program, predicted that the DPRK will achieve food self-sufficiency at some point in the near future. The DPRK has experienced substantial economic growth in the last few years, with a boom in housing construction and talk of joint ventures with foreign corporations.

The announcement by US officials of new sanctions on the DPRK, crippling its ability to export coal, was described as a “declaration of war” by North Korean leaders. This is not some wild, extreme claim or accusation.

The DPRK is trying to repair its economy from the disaster of the 1990s. Preventing the DPRK from selling coal on the international markets is, in essence, taking food from the mouths of Korean people. This is an act of economic warfare, and the Korean people are greatly outraged by it.

US leaders are economically strangling the DPRK, and say they are doing it because of concerns about “human rights.” At the same time US oil companies continue to do business with the most blatantly autocratic and repressive dictatorships on earth in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. The US sells weapons and props up the economies of brutal absolute monarchies where even basic notions of human rights do not exist, while continuing to threaten the DPRK based on allegations about labor camps.

According to even its harshest critics, the government in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula has a constitution and voting, while providing universal housing to the population. These facts alone put the DPRK miles ahead of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates in terms of human rights.

The blatant hypocrisy of US leaders, who sabotage the DPRK’s economy and then tell the world that Kim Jong-Un is “starving his own people” is astonishing. There is no reason that the DPRK should not be able to sell its products on the world market like any other country. The harsh response of the DPRK to the new sanctions should not be shocking to anyone.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The defence of national sovereignty, like its critique, leads to serious misunderstandings once one detaches it from the social class content of the the strategy in which it is embedded. The leading social bloc in capitalist societies always conceives sovereignty as a necessary instrument for the promotion of its own interests based on both capitalist exploitation of labour and the consolidation of its international positions.

Today, in the globalized neoliberal system (which I prefer to call ordo-liberal, borrowing this excellent term from Bruno Ogent) dominated by financialised monopolies of the imperialist triad (United States, Europe, Japan), the political authorities in charge of the management of the system for the exclusive benefit of the monopolies in question conceive national sovereignty as an instrument enabling them to improve their “competitive” positions in the global system. The economic and social means of the State (submission of work to employer requirements, organisation of unemployment and job insecurity, segmentation of the labour market) and policy interventions (including military interventions) are associated and combined in the pursuit of one sole objective: maximising the volume of rent captured by their “national” monopolies.

The ordo-liberal ideological discourse claims to establish an order based solely on the generalised market, where mechanisms are supposed to be self-regulatory and productive of social optimum (which is obviously false), provided that competition is free and transparent (that it never is and can not be in the era of monopolies), as it claims that the state has no role to play beyond the guarantee of the running of the competition in question (which is contrary to facts: it requires the state’s active intervention in its favour; ordo-liberalism is a state policy). This narrative – expression of the ideology of the “liberal virus” – prevents all understanding of the actual functioning of the system as well as the functions the state and national sovereignty fulfill in it. The US gives the example of a decided and continuous practical implementation of sovereignty understood in this “bourgeois” meaning, that is to say today in the service of the capital of financialised monopolies. The “national” right benefits in the United States of its affirmed and reconfirmed supremacy over “international law”. It was the same in the imperialist countries of Europe of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Did things change with the construction of the European Union? European discourse claims and legitimates submission of national sovereignty to “European law”, expressed through the decisions of Brussels and the ECB, under the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The freedom of choice of voters is itself limited by the apparent supranational requirements of ordo-liberalism. As Ms. Merkel said: “This choice must be compatible with market requirements”; beyond them it loses its legitimacy. However, in counterpoint to this discourse, Germany argues for policies that implement the exercise of its national sovereignty and seeks to submit its European partners to respect its requirements. Germany has used European ordo-liberalism to establish its hegemony, particularly in the euro zone. Britain – by its Brexit choice – in turn decided to implement the benefits of exercising its national sovereignty.

We can understand then that “nationalist discourse” and the endlessly praised virtues of national sovereignty, understood in this way (bourgeois-capitalist sovereignty) without the class content of the interests that it serves being mentioned, has always been subject to reservations, to put it mildly, from currents of the left in broad meaning, that is to say, all those who have the desire to defend the interests of the working classes. However, let us be wary of reducing the defense of national sovereignty to the simple terms of “bourgeois nationalism”. This defence is as necessary to serve other social interests as the ruling capitalist bloc. It will be closely associated with the deployment of capitalist exit strategies and commitment on the long road to socialism. It is a prerequisite of possible progress in this direction. The reason is that the effective reconsideration of global (and European) ordo-liberalism will never be anything but the product of uneven advances from one country to another, from one moment to another. The global system (and the European subsystem) has never been transformed “from above”, by means of collective decisions of the “international (or “European”) community”. The developments of these systems have never been other than the product of changes imposed within the states that compose them, and what results concerning the evolution of power relations between them. The framework defined by the (“nation”) State remains one in which decisive struggles that transform the world unfold.

The peoples of the peripheries of the global system, polarised by nature, have a long experience of this positive nationalism, that is to say anti-imperialist nationalism (expressing the refusal of the imposed world order) and potentially anti-capitalist. I only say this because potentially nationalism may also be carrying the illusion of building a national capitalism managing to “catch up” with the national construction of dominant centres. The nationalism of the peoples of the peripheries is progressive only on this condition: that it be anti-imperialist, breaking with global ordo-liberalism. In counterpoint a “nationalism” (while only apparent) that fits in with globalised ordo-liberalism, and therefore does not affect subordinate positions of the concerned nation in the system, becomes the instrument of the dominant local classes keen to participate in the exploitation of their people and possibly weaker peripheral partner towards which it acts as a “sub-imperialism”.

Today advances – audacious or restricted – allowing us to escape from ordo-liberalism are necessary and possible in all parts of the world, North and South. The crisis of capitalism created a breeding ground for the maturation of revolutionary circumstances. I express this requirement that is objective, necessary and possible, in a short sentence: “escape from the crisis of capitalism or escape from capitalism in crisis?” (The title of one of my recent books). Escaping the crisis is not our problem, it is that of the capitalist rulers. Whether they succeed (and in my opinion they are not engaged in ways that would allow it) or not is not our problem. What have we to gain by partnering with our adversaries to revive broken-down ordo-liberalism? This crisis created opportunities for consistent advances, more or less bold, provided that the fighting movements adopt goal-led strategies. The affirmation of national sovereignty is then required to enable these advances that are necessarily uneven from one country to another, but always in conflict with the logic of ordo-liberalism. The sovereign national project that is popular, social and democratic proposed in this paper is designed with this in mind. The concept of sovereignty implemented here is not that of bourgeois-capitalist sovereignty; it differs from it and for this reason must be qualified as popular sovereignty.

The confusion between these two contradictory concepts, and from there the rapid rejection of any “nationalism” without more precision, destroys any possibility of escaping ordo-liberalism. Unfortunately in Europe – and beyond – the contemporary left engaged in struggles often practices this amalgam.

Defending national sovereignty does not mean simply to want “another, multipolar globalisation” (in counterpoint to the current model of globalisation), based on the idea that international order must be negotiated among sovereign national partners, equal in rights, and not unilaterally imposed by the powerful – the imperialist triad, United States at the head – as it is in ordo-liberalism. Still we have to answer the question: why a multipolar world? Because it can be designed as still governed by the competition between systems accepting ordo-liberalism; or, in counterpoint, as an opening frame giving leeway to people who want to escape this ordo-liberalism. We must therefore specify the nature of the objective pursued under the proposed multi-polar system. As always in history a national project can be hybrid, crossed with contradictions between trends therein deployed, some in favour of a capitalist nation and others who give themselves other goals beyond their progressive social content. China’s sovereign project provides a good example; semi sovereign projects in India and Brazil (before the rightist coup) provide others.

The stalled European Union 

Although the collapse of the European project (and in particular the subsystem of the Euro) has already been underway for years (Ref. Samir Amin, The implosion of contemporary capitalism), Brexit evidently constitutes a major expression of it.

The European project was conceived from the outset in 1957 as an instrument implemented by the partners’ – France and Germany in particular – capitalist monopolies with the support of the United States, to defuse the risk of socialist, radical or moderate take-overs. The Rome treaty, by signing in stone the sanctity of private property, outlawed any aspiration to socialism, as Giscard d’Estaing said at the time. Subsequently and gradually this character was reinforced by European building up, a reinforced concrete one since the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The argument orchestrated by propaganda for the acceptance of the project was that it finally abolished the national sovereignty of the states of the Union, these sovereignties (in their bourgeois/imperialist form) that had been at the origin of the unprecedented massacres of the two great wars of the twentieth century. Therefore this project has received a favourable response from the younger generations, by dangling a democratic and pacifist European sovereignty, taking the place of the war-mongering national sovereignties of the past. In fact sovereignty of States was never abolished, but mobilised to accept ordo-liberalism, and become the necessary framework to ensure to now financialised monopolies the monopoly of the economic, social and political management of European societies; and that whatever the possible developments of opinions. The European project is based on an absolute denial of democracy (understood as the exercise of choice between alternative social projects) that goes well beyond the “democratic deficit” argued against the Brussels bureaucracy. It has given repeated evidence; and has de facto annihilated the credibilityof elections whose results are legitimate only insofar as they comply with the requirements of ordo-liberalism.

Germany has been able, in the context of this European construction, to assert its hegemony. Thus German (bourgeois/capitalist) sovereignty was erected as a substitute for a nonexistent European sovereignty. European partners are invited to align with the requirements of this sovereignty superior to that of others. Europe has become the German Europe, particularly in the Eurozone where Berlin manages the finances with preferential benefit to the German Konzerns. Important politicians like Finance Minister Schäuble, indulge in a permanent blackmail and threaten the European partners with a “German exit” (Gexit) in case they call into question Berlins hegemony.

It should not be avoided to conclude from the obvious facts: the German model poisons Europe, Germany included. Ordo-liberalism is the source of the persistent stagnation of the continent, coupled with ongoing austerity policies. So ordo-liberalism is an irrational system when it is in the perspective of protecting the interests of popular majorities in all EU countries, including Germany, as in the prospect of long-term defence of ecological conditions of reproduction of economic and social life. Furthermore ordo-liberalism leads to endless aggravation of inequality between partners; it is the origin of the trade surpluses of Germany and symmetrical deficits of others. But ordo-liberalism is a perfectly rational option from the perspective of financial monopolies of which it ensures the continued growth of their monopoly rents. This system is not viable. Not because it faces the growing resistance of its victims (ineffective to date), but because of its own internal contradiction: the growth of rent monopolies impose stagnation and the continually worsened status of fragile partners (Greece and others).

The captain at the helm is leading the European ship straight towards visible reefs. Passengers implore him to change course; to no avail. The captain, protected by a praetorian guard (Brussels, ECB) remains invulnerable. It only remains to throw the life boats out to sea. It is certainly dangerous, but a lesser danger than the certain shipwreck in sight. The image will help to understand the nature of the two options between which the critics of the European system in place are hesitant to choose. Some argue that we must stay on board; evolve the European construction in new directions, respecting the interests of popular majorities.They persist despite the repeated failures of the struggles involved in this strategy. Others call to leave the ship, as evidenced by the choice of the English. Leaving Europe; but for what? Disinformation campaigns orchestrated by the media clergy in the service of ordo-liberalism contribute to scrambling the cards. An amalgam is maintained between all possible forms of use of national sovereignty, all presented as demagogic, “populist”, unrealistic, chauvinistic, out-of-date, nauseating. The public is pummeled by the discourse on security and immigration, while highlighting the responsibilities of ordo-liberalism in worsening conditions of workers is avoided. Unfortunately whole segments of the left involve themselves with this game.

For my part, I say that there is nothing to expect from the European project, which can not be transformed from within; we must deconstruct and eventually rebuild later from different foundations. Because they refuse to reach this conclusion, many of the movements in conflict with ordo-liberalism remain hesitant regarding the strategic objectives of their struggles: to leave Europe or remain in it (and keep the Euro or not)? In these circumstances the arguments raised by both sides are different in the extreme, often on trivial issues, sometimes about false issues orchestrated by the media (security, immigrants), resulting in nauseous choices, rarely about the real challenges. An exit from NATO for example, is rarely invoked. Nevertheless, the rising tide that is expressed in the rejection of Europe (like with Brexit) reflects the destruction of illusions about the possibility of reform.

Nevertheless, confusion scares. Great Britain certainly did not intend to implement its sovereignty to engage in a way that deviates from ordo-liberalism. Rather London wants to further open towards the US (Great Britain does not retain the reluctance of some Europeans towards the transatlantic free trade agreement), the Commonwealth countries and the emerging countries of the South, replacing the European priority. Nothing else; and certainly not a better social program. In addition for the British, German hegemony is less acceptable than it appears to be for others, in France and Italy.

European fascists proclaim their hostility to Europe and the euro. But we must know that their concept of sovereignty is that of the capitalist bourgeoisie; their project is the research of national competitiveness in the ordo-liberalism system associated with foul campaigns against immigrants. The fascists are never the defenders of democracy, not even an electoral democracy (except by opportunism), let alone a more advanced democracy. Faced with the challenge, the ruling class will not hesitate: it prefers the fascist exit from the crisis. It demonstrated this in Ukraine. The scarecrow of rejection of Europe by fascists paralyses the struggles waged against ordo-liberalism. The frequently invoked argument is: how can we make a common cause against Europe with the fascists? These confusions cause us to forget that the success of the fascists is precisely the product of the timidity of the radical left. If it had boldly defended the sovereignty project, specifically its popular and democratic content, associated with the denunciation of the demagogic and lying sovereignty project of the fascists, it would have engaged the voices that are today with the fascists. The defense of the illusion of a possible reform of Europe does not prevent its implosion. The European project unravels to the benefit of a re emergence of what sadly seems to resemble the Europe of the 1930s and 1940s: a German Europe; Britain and Russia outside of it, France hesitating between Vichy (in place today) or deGaulle (still invisible); Spain and Italy sailing in the wake of London or Berlin; etc…

 National sovereignty serving the peoples

National sovereignty is the indispensable instrument of social improvements and progress of democratisation, in the North as in the South of the planet. These advances are controlled by a logic that lies beyond capitalism, in a favourable prospect for the emergence of a polycentric world and consolidation of internationalism of peoples.

In the Southern countries the sovereign national project must “walk on two legs”:

(i) engage itself in the construction of a self-centered and integrated industrial system in which the different branches of production become suppliers and outlets of each other. Ordo-liberalism does not allow this construction. It indeed conceives “competitiveness” as that of each industrial establishment considered by itself. The implementation of this principle then gives priority to exports and reduced the industries of the Southern countries to the status of subcontractors dominated by monopolies of the imperialist centres, which appropriate by this means a large part of the value created there and transform it into imperialist monopoly rent. In counterpoint the construction of an industrial system requires planning of state and national ownership of currency, the tax system, and foreign trade.

(ii) engage in an original way in renovation of peasant agriculture, based on the principle that agricultural land is a common good of the nation, managed in a way that secures access to land and the means of exploiting it to all farming families. Projects must be designed on this basis for the growth of output per family/hectare, and priority industries put in place to allow this. The objective of this strategy is to ensure the nation’s food sovereignty and control migratory flows from the countryside to the cities, to adjust the pace to the growth of urban employment.

The articulation of progress on each of these two fields is the main focus of state policies that guarantee the consolidation of “worker and peasant” broad popular alliances. This creates a favourable terrain for the advances of participatory democracy.

In the Northern countries popular sovereignty must also break with ordo-liberalism, implying here bold policies up to the nationalisation of monopolies and the initiation of means of socialisation of their management.This obviously implies the national management of the control of money, credit, taxation, and foreign trade.

The imperialist system in place implements a differentiated range of ways in which it has dominion over the nations of the peripheries of the global system and their exploitation. In the advanced countries of the South in the industrialisation segments of the outsourced global system, controlled by the capital of financialised monopolies of the imperialist triad (United States, Western and Central Europe, Japan), reduced to the status of subcontractors, offer major means by which a growing mass of the value generated in the dependent local economies is converted into imperialist monopoly rent. In many developing countries, operating modes also take the form of brutal plunder of natural resources (oil, minerals, agricultural land, water and sunlight) on the one hand, that of the implementation of financial raids which seize the national savings of the countries in question. The constraint of ensuring priority in the service of external debt is the means by which these raids operate.

The structural deficit of public finances in these countries creates an opportunity for imperialist monopolies to place profitably their growing financial surpluses generated by the crisis of the globalised and financialised imperialist system by forcing developing countries into debt in leonine conditions.Financial raiding also exercises its destructive effects in the imperialist centres. The continued growth of the volume of public debt relative to GDP is actively sought and supported by national and international financial capital to which it allows fruitful investment of surpluses. The public debt owed to private financial market provides the opportunity of a drain imposed on the incomes of workers, allowing the growth of rent monopolies. Thus fueling the continued growth of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. The official discourse that claims to implement policies to reduce the debt is completely false: their goal is actually to increase rather than reduce the debt.

Neoliberal globalisation continues a massive attack against peasant agriculture in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Accepting this major component of globalisation led to the enormous poverty/exclusion of hundreds of millions of people on three continents. It would actually stop any attempt of our societies to succeed in the global society of nations. Modern capitalist agriculture, represented by both rich family farming and/or by agribusiness companies, seeks to massively attack global peasant production. Capitalist agriculture governed by the principle of profitability of capital located in North America, Europe, Southern Cone of Latin America and Australia, employs only a few tens of millions of farmers, so that it has the highest global productivity; while peasant farming systems still occupy nearly half of humanity – three billion people. What would happen if “agriculture and food production” were treated like any other form of capitalist production, subject to the rules of competition in a deregulated open market? Would these principles facilitate the acceleration of production? Indeed, one can imagine fifty million new additional modern farmers, producing what the three billion farmers present on the market can offer in addition to their own (and low) subsistence. Conditions for success of such an alternative would require significant transfers of arable land to new farmers (lands taken from those currently occupied by peasant societies), access to capital markets (to buy equipment) and access to consumer markets.

These farmers would compete easily with the billions of existing farmers. And what would happen to them? Billions of noncompetitive producers would be eliminated in a short historical period of a few decades. The main argument for the legitimisation of the “competitive” alternative is that this kind of development took place in Europe in the nineteenth century and contributed to the formation of rich industrial then postindustrial urban societies able to feed the nation and even to export surplus food. Why not repeat this model in the countries of the third world today? No, because this argument ignores two key factors that today make a reproduction of the model impossible in third world countries. The first is that the European model developed for a century and a half with intensive labour industrial technologies. Contemporary technologies are much less. And therefore, if the newcomers of the third world are to be competitive in world markets for their industrial exports, they must adopt these technologies. The second is that in the process of this long transition., Europe could massively emigrate its surplus population to the Americas.

Can we imagine other alternatives based on access to land for all local inhabitants? In this context it is implied that peasant agriculture must be maintained and simultaneously engaged in a process of change and continuous technological and social progress. And this at a pace that would allow a progressive transfer to non-agricultural employment along with the development of the system. Such a strategic goal involves policies protecting peasant food production from the unequal competition of modernized national agriculture and international agribusiness. It challenges industrial and urban development models – which should be less based on exports and low wages (which in turn imply low food prices) and give more attention to the expansion of a market socially balanced inside. In addition such a strategy would facilitate the integration in all policies that ensure national food sovereignty, an essential condition for a country to be an active member of the international community, strengthening its necessary degree of autonomy and capacity for negotiation.

Extra readings 

For brevity I have not addressed here any adjacent major issues: the emergence of capitalism of generalised monopolies, the new generalised proletarianisation, the militarisation of globalisation and conflicts over access to natural resources, the financial globalisation as the weak link of the system, reconstruction of solidarity among developing countries, the strategy of ongoing struggles, the requirements of anti imperialist internationalism of peoples. I refer the reader to my book L’implosion du capitalisme contemporain (The implosion of contemporary capitalism) and draw attention to the institutional structures that I have proposed to consolidate popular content management of the transition of the economy beyond capitalism (pages 123-128 of the cited book).

Author’s Note

The following article first published in January of  2012 focuses on an important piece of legislation (National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) HR 1540).

Barely noticed by our mainstream media,  HR 1540 (signed into law by president Obama on December 31, 2011) has set the stage for the repeal of constitutional government,  not to mention the development of the “Surveillance State”, which has recently been the object of heated debate.

The American republic is fractured. The tendency is towards the establishment of a totalitarian State, a military government dressed in civilian clothes.

The adoption of  the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), HR 1540) is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA.

As in the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1930s, fundamental rights and freedoms are repealed under the pretext that democracy is threatened and must be protected.

Domestic radical groups and labor activists constitute in the eyes of the Obama administration a threat to the established economic and political order.

The media is complicit in the demise of constitutional government.

All the components of  Police State USA are currently in place. They go far beyond government snooping of emails and telephone conversations.  They include:

 Extrajudicial assassinations of  alleged terrorists including US citizens, in blatant violation of the Fifth amendment  “No person shall. .. be deprived of life. .. without due process of law.”

The indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, namely the repeal of Habeas Corpus. 

The establishment of “Internment Camps” on US Military Bases under legislation adopted  in 2009 .

Under the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) the “Internment Camps”. can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

The FEMA internment camps are part of the Continuity of Government (COG), which would be put in place in the case of martial law.  The internment camps are intended to “protect the government” against its citizens, by locking up protesters as well as political activists who might challenge the legitimacy of the Administration’s national security, economic or military agenda.

Michel Chossudovsky, June 06 2015, reposted July 16, 2016

The Inauguration of Police State USA 2012: Obama Signs the “National Defense Authorization Act “

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, January 1, 2012

With minimal media debate, at a time when Americans were celebrating the New Year with their loved ones,  the “National Defense Authorization Act ” H.R. 1540 was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The actual signing took place in Hawaii on the 31st of December.

According to Obama’s “signing statement”, the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms, with a stroke of the pen.  The relevant provisions pertaining to civil rights were carefully esconded in a short section of  a 500+ page document.

The controversial signing statement (see transcript below) is a smokescreen. Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law.

“[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Obama implements “Police State USA”, while acknowledging that certain provisions of  the NDAA (contained in Subtitle D–Counterterrorism) are unacceptable. If such is the case, he could have either vetoed the NDAA (H.R. 1540) or sent it back to Congress with his objections.

The fact of the matter is that both the Executive and the US Congress are complicit in the drafting of Subtitle D. In this regard, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) revealed that it was the White House which had asked the Senate Armed Services Committee “to remove language from the bill that would have prohibited U.S. citizens’ military detention without due process”

Obama justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a “counter-terrorism” agenda.  But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can –under the provisions of the NDAA– be labelled a “suspected terrorist” and arrested under military detention. Already in 2004, Homeland Security defined  several categories of potential “conspirators” or “suspected terrorists” including  “foreign [Islamic] terrorists”, “domestic radical groups”, [antiwar and civil rights groups],  “disgruntled employees” [labor and union activists] and “state sponsored adversaries” [“rogue states”, “unstable nations”]. The unspoken objective in an era of war and social crisis is to repress all forms of domestic protest and dissent.

The “National Defense Authorization Act ” (H.R. 1540) is Obama’s New Year’s “Gift” to the American People:

“Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” (emphasis added)

Barack Obama is a lawyer (a graduate from Harvard Law School). He knows fair well that his signing statement –which parrots his commitment to democracy– is purely cosmetic. It has no force of law.

His administration “will not authorize” what? The implementation of a Law endorsed by the Executive and signed by the President of the United States?

Section  1021 is crystal clear. The Executive cannot refuse to implement it.  The signing statement does not in any way invalidate or modify the actual signing by President Obama of NDAA (H.R. 1540) into law. It does not have any bearing on the implementation/ enforcement of the Law.

“Democratic Dictatorship” in America

The “National Defense Authorization Act ” (H.R. 1540) repeals the US Constitution. While the facade of democracy prevails, supported by media propaganda, the American republic is fractured. The tendency is towards the establishment of a totalitarian State, a military government dressed in civilian clothes.

The passage of  NDAA is intimately related to Washington’s global military agenda. The military pursuit of Worldwide hegemony also requires the “Militarization of the Homeland”, namely the demise of the American Republic.

In substance, the signing statement is intended to mislead Americans and provide a “democratic face” to the President as well as to the unfolding post-911 Military Police State apparatus.

The “most important traditions and values” in derogation of  The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution have indeed been repealed, effective on New Year’s Day, January 1st 2012.

The NDAA authorises the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens.

The Lessons of History

This New Year’s Eve December 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA will indelibly go down as a landmark in American history. Barack Obama will go down in history as “the president who killed Constitutional democracy” in the United States.

If we are to put this in a comparative historical context, the relevant provisions of the NDAA HR 1540 are, in many regards, comparable to those contained in the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State”, commonly known as the “Reichstag Fire Decree” (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) enacted in Germany under the Weimar Republic on 27 February 1933 by President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg.

Implemented in the immediate wake of the Reichstag Fire (which served as a pretext), this February 1933 decree was used to repeal civil liberties including the right of Habeas Corpus.

Article 1 of the February 1933 “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State” suspended civil liberties under the pretext of “protecting” democracy: “Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of association and assembly, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations, as well as restrictions on property rights are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.” (Art. 1, emphasis added)

Constitutional democracy was nullified in Germany through the signing of a presidential decree.

The Reichstag Fire decree was followed in March 1933 by “The Enabling Act” ( Ermächtigungsgesetz) which allowed (or enabled) the Nazi government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invoke de facto dictatorial powers. These two decrees enabled the Nazi regime to introduce legislation which was in overt contradiction with the 1919 Weimar Constitution.

The following year, upon the death of president Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler “declared the office of President vacant”  and took over as Fuerer, the combined function’s of Chancellor and Head of State.

The Reichstag Fire, Berlin, February 1933

Germany’s President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg

Obama’s New Year’s Gift to the American People

To say that January 1st 2012 is “A Sad Day for America” is a gross understatement.

The signing of NDAA (HR 1540) into law is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA.

As in Weimar Germany, fundamental rights and freedoms are repealed under the pretext that democracy is threatened and must be protected.

The NDAA is “Obama’s New Year’s Gift” to the American People. …

Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, Canada, January, 1st 2012

Today, January 1st, 2012, our thoughts are with the American people.

[Posted January 1 2012. Minor editing January 2, 2012]

RELATED GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLES

The US is a Police State
– by Prof. John McMurtry – 2011-11-09

According to Andrew Kolin, a police state is unlimited state power of armed force freely discharged without citizen right to stop it. What is featured in this account are the laws and directives which empower the police state norms.

The Obama Administration’s “Secret Law” to Spy on Americans
– by Tom Burghardt – 2011-07-31

The FBI isn’t the only agency shielded by the Justice Department under cover of bogus “state secrets” assertions by the Obama administration.

Orwell 2011: Towards a Pervasive “Surveillance State” in America
– by Tom Burghardt – 2011-03-28

Threats to our freedom to speak out without harassment, or worse, have never been greater

Towards Martial Law in America: Authority to Deploy Troops Domestically during ‘National Emergencies’
– by James Corbett – 2010-10-27

How does a branch of the military end up in the Department of Homeland Security, whose mission is to police the “homeland” and its residents?

Preparing for Civil Unrest in America
Legislation to Establish Internment Camps on US Military Bases
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-03-18

Legislation to Establish Internment Camps on US Military Bases

“Big Brother” Presidential Directive: “Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-06-11

Domestic radical groups and labor activists constitute in the eyes of the Bush administration, a threat to the established economic and political order.

ANNEX

Transcript of Signing Statement by President Barack Obama on H.R. 1540, December 31,  2011

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA,

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 31, 2011

NEW RELEASE:
Towards a World War III Scenario

by Michel Chossudovsky

Contradictory reports are coming in.

A faction within Turkey’s military announced that it had seized power against president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The statement accused Erdogan of “eroding the country’s secular traditions”,  Martial law was announced and a curfew was  implemented late Friday night.

According to reports, the armed forces were deployed in Ankara and Istanbul. There were also reports of clashes between the coup plotters and loyal factions of the armed forces:

“Reuters reporters saw a helicopter open fire. State-run news agency Anadolu said military helicopters had fired on the headquarters of the intelligence agency. Reuters journalists saw tanks open fire near the parliament building in Ankara, which they had surrounded. A Turkish fighter jet shot down a military helicopter used by the coup plotters over the capital, the NTV broadcaster reported.”

The president has called upon his supporters to take to the streets in a statement rebroadcast on CNN Turkey. A government spokesperson said that the attempted coup was by a faction within the military and that power still rested with the government.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a brief statement via CNN Turk calling on the country’s people to fight back against what he called a Gulenist network effort to undermine the country’s democracy. In the statement, Erdogan urged citizens to wage conflict and take to the streets in protest. (Sputnik, July 15, 2016)

The Gulenists are followers of Fethullah Gulen, a US-based Muslim cleric who seaks the formation of a “Parallel Structure”.  The Gulenists have denied any involvement. The group within the military responsible for the coup is a self proclaimed “Peace Council”. Their stated objective is to establish an interim government and “reinstall democratic practices”.

In recent developments, the Prime Minister has said that the coup has been put down and the coup plotters have been arrested.  The evidence, however, points to chaos in the streets of Ankara, including the exchange of gunfire.

UPDATE: Erdogan made a speech at Istanbul airport. His whereabouts have been ascertained.

A Turkish F-16 fighter jet has reportedly shot down a military helicopter used by the pro-coup faction of the Turkish army, local broadcaster NTV reported, as reports suggested the capital of Ankara descended into chaotic clashes involving civilians and military. (RT, July 15, 2016)

The government sources point to a “Failed Coup” while independent sources point to confrontation between different factions in the Armed Forces. “Ankara chaos: All-out war with helicopters, fighter jets, tanks, casualties reported”

“Multiple reports of explosions and shooting are coming out of Ankara, with some stating that at least four explosions were heard. Tanks are opening fire around the Turkish parliament building”, Press TV reports.

A military helicopter was spotted opening fire above Ankara, Reuters reports, citing witnesses. Other reports claim that a loud explosion occurred at the headquarters of state broadcaster TRT.

The U.S. military’s future use of Turkish bases in the campaign against the Islamic State was left uncertain Friday evening amid an attempted coup against the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (WP, July 15, 2016)

The US led “counter-terrorism” operation against the Islamic State is largely intended to protect rather than destroy ISIS and Al Qaeda forces fighting the government of Bashar al Assad.

In recent developments, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in liaison with Washington have channelled arms, ammunition and supplies to the rebels inside Syria, not to mention the influx of new terrorist recruits across the Turkey-Syria border.

Without the Erdogan government’s support, the US-NATO-Israel sponsored jihadist insurgency against the Syrian government would most probably have been defeated.

In the short run, the attempted coup is likely to have an impact on the Battle of Aleppo, inasmuch as as the supply lines from Turkey may be temporarily disrupted.

There is a strong secular tradition in the Turkish Armed Forces as well as opposition to Erdogan’s support of the Islamic State, including the smuggling of oil across the Syrian-Turkish border:

“We have received additional information confirming that the oil controlled by Islamic State militants (ISIS) enters Turkish territory on an industrial scale. We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure the security of this oil’s delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers.” (President Vladimir Putin, Paris, November 30, 2015)

Nice, 14th of July Massacre: Towards Martial Law? The Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) Claims Responsibility?

By Peter Koenig, July 15 2016

Another terror event in France resulting in a dramatic and tragic loss of life. On Bastille Day: 14th of July, the day commemorating the French Revolution of 1789, the most important French National Holiday. This time in Nice, killing at least 84 people, many children – and leaving scores injured.

The Nice Terror Attack: Towards a Permanent State of Emergency?

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin, July 15 2016

The death toll from the Nice attacks on the 14th of July, 2016 is rising. Latest reports suggest 84 deaths and possibly one hundred more injured. There have been reports of gunfire and the driver of the truck which drove into the crowd near the beach in Nice is reported to have been shot dead.

The Nice Terror Attack, France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls: “We Must Learn to Live with the Terror, Like Israel”

By 21st Century Wire, July 15 2016

In the aftermath of last night’s tragic  ‘terrorist’ attack in Nice, France, one of the most popular talking points which has emerged throughout much of the western media coverage is the idea that terrorism is now a ‘normal part of our everyday lives’ and that a permanent state of military alert at home is something the public needs to get used to.

NATO: Agent for the Provocation of Perpetual War. Poland Occupied by Foreign Armies

By Julian Rose, July 15 2016

Poland, a Country repeatedly occupied by foreign armies in the past, is once again suffering the humiliation of foreign troops encroaching upon her sovereign territory. Only this time, the occupying armies are under the flag of NATO and the agenda is the establishment of an ostensibly anti Russian ‘war theatre’ – a logistical bridge-head in preparation for a possible Third World War.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): TPP Will Probably Become Law in U.S. Soon After November Elections.Top Lobbyist

By Eric Zuesse, July 15 2016

Rufus Yerxa, the top lobbyist for the National Foreign Trade Council, told World Trade Online, on July 12th, that he believes “there is enough time and congressional support to get TPP passed during a lame-duck” session of Congress, meaning the session between November 9th and January 3rd, which would be in time for U.S. President Barack Obama to sign it into U.S. law before leaving office.

The Myth of “Aggressive Russia”

By Rick Sterling, July 15 2016

Recently I went on a 15 day visit to Russia organized by the Center for Citizen Initiatives. The group visited Moscow, the Crimean peninsula, Krasnodar (southern Russia) and St. Petersburg. In each location we met many locals and heard diverse viewpoints. CCI has a long history promoting friendship and trying to overcome false assumptions between citizens of the USA and Russia.

Written and produced by SF Team: Brian Betts, Daniel Deiss

Poland, a Country repeatedly occupied by foreign armies in the past, is once again suffering the humiliation of foreign troops encroaching upon her sovereign territory. Only this time, the occupying armies are under the flag of NATO and the agenda is the establishment of an ostensibly anti Russian ‘war theatre’ – a logistical bridge-head in preparation for a possible Third World War.

Not surprisingly, I am deeply troubled by this manoevring. As a British citizen working in Poland for the past fourteen years (as co-director of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside), I feel a keen sense of the injustice being perpetrated upon the Polish people. They do not realize that the nation is being led down a road which could end-up establishing a dangerous precident: a near permanent US led foreign army on Polish soil.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this ‘occupation’ is that it is being welcomed with open arms by the Polish government, which appears obsessed with the notion that the Russian Federation may be planning to invade Poland. But any realistic evidence for this is entirely lacking, rendering the entire exercise as nothing short of criminal.

The degree of carefully controlled NATO propaganda being put out by the national government is unprecedented in recent history. It resembles the techniques used by the Communists, during their occupation of pre 1989 Poland. This resemblance is reinforced by that fact that the present government (Pis), has taken a 100% controlling influence of the Country’s media in order to reinforce its position.

That might be all well and good, if the position was one based upon insight, wisdom and positive leadership. However these are exactly the attributes that are missing.

In their place is an unholy capitulation to spreading the message of ‘fear’. Fear used as the mirror image of the US foreign policy position of the past two to three decades, with ‘fear of terrorism’ being hyped-up to offer an alibi for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now by proxy, Syria and the murder of millions that has resulted.

Let us therefore remind ourselves of what the actual story is here, so that we may counter this grand deception and dangerous indoctrination of Polish citizens.

NATO, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is officially described as “an alliance of countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the  North Atlantic Treaty of 1949.” However that is just a front, in reality NATO is an agent of the ‘New World Order’ promoted by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger and other members of the long standing US neoconservative imperialist club. A club closely supported by Great Britain, whose Royal Society has long planned for a continuation of the hegemonic ambitions associated with the building of the British Empire.

NATO-US-paratroopers in Poland

This is the background of the euphemistically named ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the USA. The same policy position is maintained by President Obama to this day.

Other European nations enlisted into NATO’s fold have recently been warned that “Russia represents the greatest threat to World peace.”  As always, this ‘fear ticket’ has been instrumental in sucking countries into the fold.

Few have questioned the logic or wisdom of this position, appearing happy to play their part in the revival of the ‘cold war’ which has thawed, frozen, re-thawed and re-frozen again, at the behest of the vast propaganda exercise perpetrated by successive US and UK governments over the past half century.

There is essentially no difference between US foreign policy and that of NATO. Which is not to say there is no friction between NATO’s European military chiefs and their US counterparts. There is; but the European element is ultimately brought to heel by their US ‘grand masters’, and the semblance of unity is preserved by government and corporate controlled public broadcasting in North America and Europe alike.

The public, who remain locked into the deliberately perpetrated psychology of fear, nod their heads in orchestrated harmony: “The US is our protectorate; Putin is Mr Evil; long live NATO.”

NATO is now the chief instrument for the continued enforcement of a policy that ensures the protection of the interests of a small meritocracy of largely Anglo Saxon industrialists, bankers and military strategists. It supports the status quo of corporate dominance and personal privilege and reflects the ongoing ambitions of families who have been at the forefront of aggressive and pugilistic wealth hunting for decades. Families like the immensely wealthy Rockefeller’s and Rothschild’s.

So let us examine the grounds for NATO and the USA’s assertion that Russia presents the greatest threat to World peace.

The Russian Federation under President Putin, has a notable lack of foreign policy interventions into territories outside its field of control. The two often cited by critics, involve a disputed incursion into Georgia (August 2008) and the  more recent ‘reclaiming to the fatherland’ of Crimea. Both these involved direct responses to Western provoked uprisings and the ‘coloured’ revolutions backed by Western sponsored hegemonic political interests, in the hope of gaining a geopolitical and military foothold in territories historically aligned with Russia.

These illegal CIA backed incursions, fomented on the back of cooked-up evidence of ‘a dangerous strategic push by Russia’ are actually part of a long standing plan developed by the Trilateral Commission, The Project for the New American Century, The Institute of Foreign Affairs, Chatham House (London) and other similar NATO/US aligned bodies of influence.

This plan is not simply a policy to protect the interests of neoliberal capitalism against its Communist counterpart, but to gain the preeminent and dominant position of power on the planet: to become masters of A New World Order. What US strategists have named “Full Spectrum Dominance”. Not just of this planet, but of outer space and eventual interplanetary colonization as well.

Now perhaps we will understand a little more about just who or what it is that Poland is inviting to be its protectorate against the supposed ‘epitomy of evil’ Vladimir Putin.

NATO is the advanced arm of a new colonization of this ancient land, whose empire was once the largest and most advanced in Europe. There are significant deposits of valuable mineral resources in many areas of the country. Copper, silver, platinum, coal and uranium, to name a few. Not to mention millions of hectares of above averagely fertile farmland. There can be little doubt that Poland’s Western neighbors have a far greater hunger for such resources than those on Poland’s Eastern flank, who have much greater deposits of the same mineral resources already available to them.

Perhaps the real reason for kranking up the latest round of fear based hysteria against Russia has to do with something else altogether. The fact that, during the past five years, Putin has initiated a national ban of GMO and put in place a policy of returning the Country to the position of a self sufficient nation, making national food security a high priority.

Not only this, Putin has responded to the trade sanctions imposed by the West after the Crimea controversy, by declaring a significant area of land in Eastern Russia available to all those who wish to enter into small scale ecological farming ventures. Aspirants who could not normally afford to get onto the land, are being gifted the chance to do so, and Russia will get the benefit of moving ever closer to the ecological based self sufficiency it has its sights on.

There is nothing that the corporate and political globalists fear more than the retention, in any country, of an independent element with access to land, water and fuel. This, after all, represents the ability to reject slavery under the corporate providers; and that, if carried out on a significant scale, could blow the agents of control right off their hegemonic thrones.

Russia, provoked by the West, has thrown down the gauntlet to those unable to see beyond the imperialist power heists so assiduously promoted and practiced by the USA and its NATO allies. She has, in affect, pulled the ace card out of the pack within the global strategic casino of modern day crypto warfare – and placed it, face up, on the gambling table.

Poland, as a nation with over one million small and medium sized family farms, could well have up-staged this surprise move by Russia, by opting to place national food security and food sovereignty at the top of its political agenda. Pis, in particular, in response to the significant political support it gets from the family farm sector of Eastern Poland, might have chosen to distance itself from the Western global imperialists, and  direct the nation down much the same route as Putin is forging for the Russian Federation of fellow Slavs.

But no, dazzled by the allure of being invited onto the top table of the global elite, President Duda and party chairman Katszinsky allowed ambition to far outsway any patriotic sense of what the Polish nation could achieve once united around a genuine goal of peace and prosperity.

In contrast to the courageous World War Two stand made by the anti Nazi resistance movement, so admired around the world, Pis – ‘the party of patriotism’ – succumbed to the classic political temptation-trap, and invited the architects of the New World Order right into th heart of the home soil. In the process, allowing their voice to be added to the well oiled propaganda machine which is assiduously trying to provoke Putin into some form of retaliatory act of defiance against an increasingly predatory NATO.

An act that would be instantly used to pin on Russia the blame for provoking a Third World War.

That is the undertext for NATO’s ‘war games’ being so provocatively played out on the border that divides the two countries.

Citizens of Poland have long been ‘softened-up’ for this new partitioning of their only recently freed land. Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform party, had already been drawn into negotiating the stationing of US Patriot missiles in Poland, in defence (according to the US Ambassador) “of a missile attack from Iran.”

These US missiles have gone ‘live’ and further consignements brought into the country, since Pis was overwhelmingly elected into power in 2015. And now NATO has been invited to establish an Eastern European HQ in Poland, with up to thirty thousand troops being allowed to engage in military manoeuvres within striking distance of the Russian border.

The softening-up of Polish citizens is a process that has been accomplished by a number of different means, and it’s most important to understand that these are now the standard tools of this age, drawn upon by the architects of the military industrial control system in order to get their way on the world stage.

Firstly, TV and the general media are brought under the control of the powers that be. This can be either corporate or government control; but usually consists of the two working in tandem.

The propaganda machine is then rolled into action, 24/7. After two or three months of unrelenting media brain washing, the majority fall in line and dutifully repeat the message without ever suspecting that it is an invention fabricated to achieve a deception of highly significant proportions.

Simultaneously, the sky is filled with chemicals (known as chemtrails) that have the affect of neutralising normally active cellular brain activity, thus helping to render citizens essentially ‘passive’; just when they most need to be most active in counteracting the political/military heist being imposed upon them.

On July 8/9, this year (2016) the sky over much of Poland was thick with airborne chemical artificial cloud trails. Exactly the dates when the recent NATO summit was being held in Warsaw. It is increasingly widely recognized, by those who can still think, that NATO has been at the forefront of chemtrail activity for the past fifteen years or more.

Laboratory tests of water and soil, after these activities have been in evidence, have revealed that chemtrails are composed of a number of highly toxic ingredients, of which aluminium, strontium and barium are the most commonly detected. All of these, in different ways, act to block the normal functioning of the neocortex, as well as diminishing the natural functioning of the nervous system, heart and lungs. Millions are unknowingly getting sick due to these clandestine, criminal activities.

By combining intense media indoctrination with chemical infusions of an already polluted atmosphere, it has been possible to create a powerful opiate against any form of active resistance or indeed, open rebellion. Something that should, by now, have forced government to cut its ties to the nefarious ambitions of the top-down Illuminati control system.

To complete the NATO web of insidious poisoning of innocent citizens, GMO planting is back on the agenda, in what is supposed to be a time of total ban of such activities.

Long fought for Polish GMO Free Zones are now threatened by new government legislation allowing the incorporating of special areas in which GM planting would be allowed to take place. This extraordinary reversal comes from Pis, the political party that once took the strongest line against the import and planting of GM seeds and plants. Banning them outright in 2016, due to overwhelming evidence of the environmental contamination and health risk attached to these genetically engineered plants and seeds.

Lastly, but by no means least, the church is brought into the fold so as to reinforce NATO’s bidding. The Vatican has for decades, made no secret of its pro Western leanings, and support for military intervention wherever its interests are under threat.

Accompanying these criminal – and frankly genocidal activities, is the steady imposition of electronic surveillance control mechanisms for monitoring both the professional and social activity of the populus as a whole. This represents a clear deprivation of basic civil rights and freedoms normally guaranteed to citizens in Countries operating political systems known as democracies.

Increasingly, anyone found to be exercising the natural instinct for observation and critical awareness, is logged as ‘a potential danger to the state’. And with the massive computer storage capacity available today, tens of thousands of names are logged onto police and state records, and then checked against any suspicious activities that might be used to incriminate such individuals as a ‘terrorist threat’.

In conclusion; as Poland’s political class places its trust in the hands of NATO and the pledge of intervention to counteract the completely unqualified chimera of the threat of a Russian invasion of Polish territory; so does the nation as a whole loose its ability to take control of its own destiny and forge a path which is in the common interest of its citizens.

US National Security strategy is now being superimposed upon Polish National Sovereignty, at the behest of the leaders of the Country. US national Security operates and has operated for decades, under the edicts of an openly antagonistic war rhetoric, which  I quote here: “We will defend our interests from a position of strength and will conduct combat operations anywhere in the World. We will, if necessary, act outside of international law in defense of our values.” And now we know what these values are.

Until Poles, and indeed all free thinking citizens of the World, deeply question the morality of supporting the unapologetic ethos of greed and war, there can be no vindication for the heroes of the past who gave their lives that we might live in freedom.

56 years ago today the United Nations launched a peacekeeping force that contributed to one of the worst post-independence imperial crimes in Africa. The Organisation des Nations Unies au Congo (ONUC) delivered a major blow to Congolese aspirations by undermining elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Canada played a significant role in ONUC and Lumumba’s assassination, which should be studied by progressives demanding Ottawa increase its participation in UN “peacekeeping”.

Another terror event in France resulting in a dramatic and tragic loss of life.

On Bastille Day: 14^th of July, the day commemorating the French Revolution of 1789, the most important French National Holiday. This time in Nice, killing at least 84 people, many children – and leaving scores injured.

What happened?

During last night’s celebration of the French National Holiday, around 11 PM, a speeding truck plowed into a crowd of thousands who were watching the fireworks along the Mediterranean Boulevard Anglais. The driver of the truck, was simultaneously and  indiscriminately shooting into the crowd. He was able to run for 2 kilometers before being stopped by police, which instantly shot and killed him.

A horrendous terror attack, killing hordes of people, spreading pain, misery, fear and outrage in France, Europe – the world over.All indications signal the Big Script of yet another false flag; yet again in France.

The young truck-driver was identified as a 31-year-old Frenchman, resident of Nizza, with Tunisian origins. As in previous cases, ‘coincidence’ has it that his identity papers were found in the truck.

Source: Daily Mail, July 15, 2016

The young man is instantly killed by the police. Dead people cannot talk. A pattern well known by now.

The man’s Tunisian roots may soon pin him to a terrorist Jihad group – if not de jure, then de facto, as the propaganda machine will spread the news and instill yet more Muslim hatred among the western population.

The Islamic State

Media reports suggest that the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the terror attack. France is identified as “Enemy Number One of the Islamic State (Daech)”

ISIS based in Northern Syria is financed and supported by America’s closest allies: Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as confirmed by a recent British Parliamentary report. It also has links to US intelligence.

 Source Daily Mail

It is not clear how the truck was able to breach the barriers to the promenade closed for pedestrians and spectators during the 14^th of July celebration.

According to eye-witnesses, it took the police and firemen about half an hour to get to the scene.

Martial Law: The Broader Implications

How is it possible that such a crowd is not ‘protected’ by patrolling police and military? And that in a country under effective Martial Law?

President Hollande spoke to the nation in an emotionless tone, reading what he was to say. None of his words sounded heartfelt. He spoke as if the terror event came as no news to him. His speech was concentrating on declaring a three-month extension of the ‘State of Emergency’ – effectively Martial Law – which was in place since the last November Bataclan Paris attacks and was to expire on 26 July 2016.

Daily Telegraph headline

Despite this Martial Law, a celebration of this magnitude, unique each year for France – where millions of people are in the streets and celebrating, strangely no police or military protection was present.

Hollande spoke of a terrorist event. His Minister of the Interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, called the truck driver a ‘terrorist’.

He has already declared to extend the current State of Emergency for another three months, when it expires on 26 July. Such a temporary extension is in his power. He will have plenty of time to force it through Parliament – thereby prompting other EU countries to do likewise.

Martial Law: The Geopolitical Dimensions

Why France? – Naturally, Hollande follows Washington’s orders. He is the most spineless puppet in Europe, making France the foremost EU vassal of America. And that in a post-Brexit ambiance, where according to several polls 70% – 80% of the French people are anti-EU and would vote for a Frexit, if they were given the chance to vote. This is a considerable increase since the Brexit referendum.

Washington needs a militarized Europe to be controlled by force, to impose its corporate financial rule, to push the TTIP down the throat of the Europeans, to make Europe the new and effective low-cost high-tech colony of the empire, and an unfailing buffer zone to Russia;

Cold War all over again. This time not so cold any more. WWIII is an imminent possibility, thanks to the EU vassals in Brussels giving NATO free reign to advance ruthlessly towards Moscow.

Surely, before long some Islamic ‘terror group’ will claim credit for the horror event. The usual. Let there be no doubt, as to who are the enemies of humanity – of ‘Western Humanity’ – the superior people, that is.

In the coming weeks it will be a piece of cake to slide this ‘law’ through the French Parliament as a permanent fixture in the French Constitution. That’s what Washington wants. That’s what Washington will get, thereby not only inciting but forcing other European nations to do likewise, putting their citizenry under military power.

How long will it take until We, the People, wake up and see the light?

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

The death toll from the Nice attacks on the 14th of July, 2016 is rising.

Latest reports suggest 84 deaths and possibly one hundred more injured. There have been reports of gunfire and the driver of the truck which drove into the crowd near the beach in Nice is reported to have been shot dead.

Once again (as with the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan attacks) there is no-one to stand trial and truthfully answer the questions that need to be asked – who and why?

French domestic intelligence (DGSI) chief Patrick Calvar warned on the 26th of June 2016 that an ‘Islamist’ attack on French children would be the trigger for a civil war. He said France was currently on the brink of that civil war. Calvar also predicted that ISIS (Da’esh) would use trucks as weapons. It is not unusual in the never-ending war on terror to hear accurate predictions by intelligence officials before attacks, with the same officials seemingly powerless to prevent them.

This ‘uncanny coincidence’ could be the defining event of our time.

French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls is on record stating that the state of emergency in France would be permanent.

There has been increasing pressure on the Hollande regime in France to change course in the Middle East. Attempts to reconcile with Russia and lift the sanctions have been blocked by Hollande and Valls.

I believe this is the trigger for a civil war French intelligence warned us about. The question is whether the war will become high intensity or continue on a relatively low-intensity trajectory. There have been police ‘whistleblowers’ in France who have warned of huge caches of arms in major cities, capable of arming hundreds of thousands of men. However, one must be cautious in referring to such ‘whistleblowers’ as they have proven to be highly unreliable and may be spreading disinformation.

In any case, the public’s belief that we are in a ‘state of war’ and that all military interventions abroad are therefore necessary will be enough to make citizens look to the state for protection – an oligarchic state which is currently pursuing a brutal class war against workers.

As 90 percent or more of intelligence operations today involve media disinformation, we cannot possibly assume that any of the reports we are hearing are accurate. However, it is hard to see how a psyop could have been carried out in the Promenade des Anglais which is so central in Nice. What we can say for sure is that the attack serves the two constants of the war on terror dialectic. The narrative would read as follows:

1. Make the state of emergency permanent, empowering the oligarchic state and further demoralising citizens by dividing the working class along religious and racial lines. This is part of NATO’s ‘strategy of tension’ in accordance with the longstanding intelligence operation Gladio. Citizens must turn to the anti-social state for ‘security’, thus precluding social revolt.

2. Justify an all out attack on Syria to finish the job of destroying Arab civilisation, in accordance with US-NATO-Israel geopolitical interests. Only the willfully ignorant could possibly believe that ISIS is an enemy of France when the French have never had better relations with the country which openly backs them – Saudi Arabia. The intelligence reports, declassified documents and admissions of the highest officials of the French and American governments all confirm that ISIS is Israel’s Arab legion.

In the aftermath of last night’s tragic  ‘terrorist’ attack in Nice, France, one of the most popular talking points which has emerged throughout much of the western media coverage is the idea that terrorism is now a ‘normal part of our everyday lives’ and that a permanent state of military alert at home is something the public needs to get used to.

One of the central voices of this police state talking is French Prime Minister and avid Israeli advocate Manuel Valls. Earlier today Valls stated that, “France has to learn to live with terrorism.”

In this way, the security state is attempting to integrate terrorism as a day-to-day 24/7, 365 day per week agenda issue – which is said to require a hyper-militarized security state, just like Israel (notice how Israel is invoked by neoconservatives and western Zionist supports ad nauseam in the security conversation), to deal with ‘the threat.’

This seems to be the cornerstone of Valls’ political relevance, which he has basically repeated over and over, for the better part of the last two years despite the fact that both the Charlie Hebdo and Paris Bataclan events exhibited very clear signs of GLADIO-style domestic terror stage play.

Back in February, at the Munich Security Conference  he stated the exact same thing:

“We have entered – we all feel it – a new era characterised by the lasting presence of ‘hyper-terrorism.‘

“We must be fully conscious of the threat, and react with a very great force and great lucidity. There will be attacks. Large-scale attacks. It’s a certainty. This hyper-terrorism is here to stay.”

In January 2016, while addressing an Israeli lobby delegation, Valls read off a list of ‘ISIS’ terrorist attacks along with other ‘terrorist’ incidents in Israel, claiming that this was proof that, “we are in a world war”, while not ever uttering a word about Israel’s brutal, militarized occupation and their systematic ethnic cleansing regime waged against the native Palestinian residents since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Israeli CRIF spokesman Roger Cukierman applauded Valls’s single-sided adherence to the Israeli lobby, by saying, “On a number of occasions, you said very powerful things: That anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, that France without its Jews is no longer France,” Cukierman said. “This makes you a dear politician.”

Is this a case of the state and its transnational security conglomerates manipulating the public into unquestioningly accepting an indefinite siege mentality and a permanent, full-blown police state?

It appears once again, that we are witnessing an attempt to transform large parts of western society – through a further realignment of public and state political and economic priorities into what is commonly referred to as “security theatre,” which, in reality, has nothing to do with actual security, and everything to do with domestic political and geopolitical theatre.

The world’s most distinguished expert in international human rights law believes Dick Cheney should – and eventually will – stand trial for war crimes.

Thomas Buergenthal, who served as a judge at the International Court of Justice for the first 10 years of this century, said he believes the former U.S. vice president could be brought before the International Criminal Court, reported Newsweek.

“Some of us have long thought that Cheney and a number of CIA agents who did what they did in those so-called black holes should appear before the ICC,” said Buergenthal, who survived the Auschwitz concentration camp as a boy.

The 81-year-old was born in the former Czechoslovakia but is now a U.S. citizen and a professor of law at George Washington University.

“We (Americans) could have tried them ourselves,” Buergenthal said. “I voted for Obama, but I think he made a great mistake when he decided not to instigate legal proceedings against some of these people. I think – yes – that it will happen.”

Buergenthal said he had no insight into whether former British Prime Minister Tony Blair might also face a war crimes tribunal for his role in the Iraq War, and he dismissed former President George W. Bush as insignificant.

“(Bush was) an ignorant person who wanted to show his mother he could do things his father couldn’t,” Buergenthal said.

He said Richard Nixon – under whom Cheney served in the early 1970s – would never have been stupid enough to start a war with Iraq.

“(Nixon was) more intelligent,” Buergenthal said. “I don’t think Nixon would have got involved in Iraq.”

Recently I went on a 15 day visit to Russia organized by the Center for Citizen Initiatives. The group visited Moscow, the Crimean peninsula, Krasnodar (southern Russia) and St. Petersburg. In each location we met many locals and heard diverse viewpoints. CCI has a long history promoting friendship and trying to overcome false assumptions between citizens of the USA and Russia. The founder Sharon Tennison has focused on making people-people connections including the business community, Rotary clubs, etc.. This delegation was organized because of concern about escalating international tensions and the danger of a drift toward world threatening military conflict.

We were in Russia in late June as they were commemorating the 75^th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. They call it the Great Patriotic War where 27 million Soviet citizens died. In Russia it’s a very sober occasion in which they pay tribute to the fallen, acknowledge the heroes and underscore the horrors of war. Virtually everyone in Russia lost family members in World War 2 and there seems to be a deep understanding of what war and invasion mean.

It is alarming to see the constant drumbeat in Western media that Russia is aggressive, Russia invaded Crimea, Russia is a threat. Hardly a day goes by that the New York Times does not have an editorial or news story with the assertion or insinuation that Russia is “aggressive”.

Today’s op-ed by Andrew Foxall is an example. The “think tank “ director bemoans the British departure from the European Union and suggests that Russian President Putin may be behind it :

Mr. Putin has spent the past 16 years trying to destabilize the West….. After Brexit, the union has lost not only one of its most capable members, but also one of its two nuclear powers and one of its two seats at the United Nations Security Council… …..Mr. Putin checked the European Union’s expansion when he invaded Ukraine in 2014. The Continent’s security order is now in a perilous plight: If Mr. Putin senses weakness, he will be tempted into further aggression.

It is now common to hear the claim that Russia “invaded” Ukraine and is “occupying” Crimea.

The US and allies have imposed sanctions because of the Crimean decision to separate from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Tourist cruise ships no longer stop at Crimean ports and international airlines are prohibited from flying directly to the international airport at the Crimean capital, Simferopol. Students from Crimean universities cannot transfer their academic credits to universities internationally.

Despite the sanctions and problems, Crimea appears to be doing reasonably well. In the past two years, the airport has been rebuilt and modernized. The streets of Balaclava, Sevastopol, Simferopol and Yalta are busy and bright. No doubt things could be much better and residents want the sanctions lifted, but there were no evident signs of shortages or poverty. On the contrary, kids were enjoying ice cream, parks were full and streets busy late into the night. The famous Artek Youth Camp near Yalta is being refurbished with new dormitories, state of the art swimming pool and gymnasium. Right now they are handling 3,000 youth in the camp at one time with 30,000 kids from all over Russia this year.

A 12 mile bridge connecting Crimea to southern Russia is now half complete. A impressive video showing the design is here.

After 22 years as part of independent Ukraine following the breakup of the Soviet Union, what drove the people of Crimea to overwhelmingly support a referendum calling for ‘re-unification’ with Russia? Was this the result of intimidation or an ‘occupation’ by Russia?

We received a very strong sense from talking with many different people in Crimea that they are happy with their decision. The impetus was not aggression from Russia; the impetus came from the violence and ultra-nationalism of the foreign backed coup in Ukraine.

Protests against Ukraine’s Yanukovych government began in November 2013 in the “Maidan” (central square) in Kiev. Protesters included right wing nationalist and Nazi sympathizers hostile to the Yanukovych government. A significant faction glorified the Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.

The US was deeply involved in promoting the “Maidan” protests and strategizing how to bring in a new government. Assistant Secy of State Victoria Nuland demanded the Yanukovych government do nothing to stop or prevent the increasing vandalism, attacks and intimidation. With thugs in the street increasingly clashing with police, the US pressed the Ukrainian government to break economic ties with Russia as a condition for closer relations with Europe and loans from the International Monetary Fund.

On the surface, the US was encouraging Ukraine to strengthen ties with the European Union but in reality Nuland’s goals were about the US, NATO and undermining Russia. This was dramatically revealed in a secretly recorded phone call between Nuland and the US Ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should and should not be in the coup government two weeks before the coup happened. As they conspired over the phone, Nuland expressed her displeasure with the EU’s reluctance to push the coup …. “Fuck the EU” said the woman who six weeks earlier spoke glowingly of Ukraine’s “European aspirations”.

Prior to the coup, Nuland spoke of the high US “investment” in promoting “democracy” in Ukraine. In a December 2013 speech she said “Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991 the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals…” (approx 7:30 into the recording / US-Ukraine Foundation, 13 December 2013).

In mid December hundreds of Crimeans traveled to Kiev in buses to join peaceful protests in opposition to the Maidan protests seen on television. They stayed in Kiev through January and into February until the violence exploded on February 18 (2014). Altogether, 82 persons were killed including 13 police and 1100 injured. At that point, the Crimeans decided peaceful protest was useless and to return home. The bus caravan departed Kiev on Feb 20 but was stopped at night near the town of Korsun. The buses were torched and the Crimean travelers brutalized, beaten and seven killed. When news of this reached Crimea, it was yet another cause for alarm. A video titled “The Crimes of Euromaidan Nazis” documents the events and includes interviews with numerous passengers. These atrocities against unarmed Crimeans were done on a public highway with no intervention from local Ukrainian police.

On Feb 21 the existing government came to a compromise agreement. But that did not appease the most violent protesters or their supporters. A parliamentarian was beaten in broad daylight and threats issued. President Yanukovych fled for his life and a new government, led by Victoria Nuland’s choice Arseniy Yatsenyuk, took charge. The US and western allies quickly recognized the new government while Russia objected it was an illegal coup. In the first days of the new government a bill was passed to make Ukrainian the sole official language of the country.

Indeed there was aggression and violence in Ukraine but it was not from Russia. Rather, evidence indicated the violence was from the forces which led the coup. This was revealed in an intercepted phone conversation between British representative to the European Union, Catherine Ashton, and the Estonian Foreign Minister, Urmas Paet. Paet reported that he had been to Kiev and “there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition.”  Instead of probing into the facts behind this dramatic information, Ashton said “Oh gosh …. We will need to look into that” and quickly moved on.

Crimeans we spoke with described their shock and outrage at the events. In just four months they witnessed violent Maidan protests, the overthrow of the elected government, beatings and killings of citizens returning from Kiev, and then the removal of Russian as an official language.

In response, local leaders recommended a Crimea wide referendum with the option to officially re-unite with the country that Crimea had been part of for over two centuries. A referendum was held on March 16. Turnout was 89% with 96% voting in favor of the “reunification of Crimea with Russia”.

With the violent overthrow of the Kiev government and clear proof of US involvement in the coup it seems highly inaccurate to say that Russia “invaded” or is “occupying” Crimea. On the contrary, it seems to be the USA and allies which are “aggressive”.

The same reversal of reality is going on with the expansion of NATO. In recent weeks NATO has placed armed forces in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. NATO military expenses are already 13 times greater than that of Russia yet NATO plans to increase military spending even more. Meanwhile the US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and is busy building and installing ABM sites in Alaska and now eastern Europe. With a serious face they have previously claimed these sites are being installed because of the danger of “Iranian missiles” but only a fool could take that seriously. There is the additional risk that the same sites could be converted from anti ballistic missiles to contain nuclear warheads.

Are NATO and the US preparing for war? The public should be asking hard questions to our political and military leaders as they waste our tax dollars and risk global conflagration.

When the audio recording of Nuland and Pyatt discussing how to “midwife” the Kiev coup was revealed, the State Dept spokesperson was grilled about it. She responded “That’s what diplomats do”.

Enough of the nonsense that “Russia is aggressive” when the evidence indicates it’s the USA and allies who are destabilizing other countries, escalating a new arms buildup and promoting conflict instead of diplomacy.

Rick Sterling is an independent writer/researcher. He can be reached at [email protected]

Commonly thought of as a bastion of peace and stability in the continent ever since the turn of the century, the southern part of Africa is once more returning to the spotlight of global attention. Zimbabwean officials have alleged that the American and French embassies are behind the latest Color Revolution commotion in the country, stating that their ambassadors even met with the movement’s newest leader, Pastor Evan Mawarire, before he began his campaign.

This accusation is echoed by regional leader South Africa, which described the latest tumult as “sponsored elements seeking regime change”. If the US succeeds in its latest Color Revolution plot, then the collapse of Resistant & Defiant Zimbabwe could be the tripwire for automatically setting into motion a preplanned sequence of other destabilizations that might rapidly spread throughout the neighboring countries, thereby returning Southern Africa back to its Cold War-era of conflict and unexpectedly turning it into the New Cold War’s latest battleground.

An Irresistible Target

Harare has always been very close to Moscow and especially Beijing, and this trilateral relationshiphas only intensified in the past couple of years. China openly stated that Africa is a priority area of its foreign policy and that its relationship with the continent is integral to the country’s sustainable 21^st-century economic growth. The $4 billion that President Xi promised Zimbabwe during his December 2015 visit there is expected to form the cornerstone of their future relations and yield tangible market benefits for China, all in accordance with its African grand strategy. Russia, just like China, also has many investments in the centrally positioned Southern African state, though they focus more on minerals and military equipment than on the real-sector economy. Still, when taken together in the complementary context of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership, Moscow and Beijing’s combined interests in Zimbabwe have made it an irresistible target for Washington’s covert campaign.

More broadly speaking, the region of Southern Africa is internationally known for having the most developed infrastructure networks – a key component of China’s One Belt One Road global vision of connectivity – and a relatively skilled labor force in comparison to the rest of Africa, thus also explaining why many companies rely on this part of the continent as their access point to the rest of it. The high level of physical connectivity between the Southern African states means that people and products can move throughout the lower half of the Southern African Development Community with ease, and while this might be a boon for business, it also inherently carries with it very serious security risks if something goes dangerously wrong in one of these states and insurgent and weapons start moving cross-border instead. Because of the economic importance that many global players attach to Southern Africa – China first and foremost among them – and the real risk that they could all be adversely impacted by the American-directed regime change operation in Zimbabwe, it’s relevant to analyze the situation in depth and prognosticate some of its most likely consequences.

New Year, Same Strategy

Zimbabwe’s economic and political woes aren’t anything new, and their present manifestation is actually the evolution of a years-long policy of hostility that the US has been practicing against it. From the implementation of sanctions in the early 2000s to the first Color Revolution attempt in 2008, the US has been persistently trying to undermine President Mugabe for both for the sake of unseating a multipolar leader and because of the regional contagion effect of instability that the Zimbabwean state’s collapse could trigger. Economic warfare against the country was responsible for historic hyperinflation rates of 231 million percent in late-2008, the timing of which was by no means a coincidence. Inflation had been exponentially multiplying in the run-up to the general election in March of that year and the second round that was eventually held in June, and the economic difficulties that Zimbabweans were forced to experience were manufactured by the US in a bid to break the population’s support for the government.

“Opposition” rival Morgan Tsvangirai was ultimately unsuccessful in toppling the government, though Mugabe eventually had to concede to a form of ‘Regime Tweaking’ in appointing him as his Prime Minister. This post was specifically created in order to deal with the Color Revolution crisis and was abolished immediately after the American proxy’s term was up, but during that four-year time, the US hoped to use Tsvangirai to weaken the government from within and subvert its sovereignty-exercising plans to integrate Zimbabwe within the emerging multipolar world order.  It’s clear that the US has been waging asymmetrical warfare on Zimbabwe for years already, and in fact, many of the lessons that it learned throughout this drawn-out operation have presently been applied to Venezuela as well. Furthermore, the riotous disturbances that are rocking the South American country right now have correspondingly proved to be invaluable lessons for the Color Revolutionaries in Zimbabwe, further demonstrating yet another example of interlinked continuity in the US’ indirect adaptive approach to regime change, or Hybrid War.

Perfecting Timing

The latest outbreak of Color Revolution violence was obviously being prepared for a while, but the dual events that prompted its commencement are the signs of an internal power struggle within the ruling ZANU-PF party and Mugabe’s elderly age, with the latter inevitably leading to the former. The President himself has had to address these rumors several times over the past year, chiding his supposed ‘allies’ for already conniving about what they will do once he eventually dies. The popular chatter is that his wife Grace will pick up the reins and carry on her husband’s legacy, but Tsvangirai has already come out against her possible candidacy and is rallying his supporters to oppose her if she chooses to run. With so much political uncertainty in the air, and the economy still in dire straits, the US saw the perfect structural opportunity for asymmetrically striking against the Zimbabwean state and thus revved up its Color Revolutionaries for the coming battle.

Coordinating The Color Revolution

Religion:

As it has been wont to do over the past couple of years in undermining targeted governments, the US is employing a syncretic approach in assembling as diverse of a crowd as possible to partake in the Zimbabwean Color Revolution. The figurehead who the US has designed to publicly lead this campaign is Pastor Evan Mawarire, and they purposely chose a religious representative in order to capitalize off of the piousness that pervades the country’s population. Mawarire was just arrested by the authorities for inciting violence, but the US likely foresaw this event and has plenty of backup plans to exploit its proxy’s ‘official’ ‘religious’ position in order to turn him into a Color Revolution  martyr behind whom the anti-government crowds and their Western government backers can rally.

Economy:

Relatedly, most of the people who are organizing against the government aren’t doing so for explicitly regime change purposes, but rather to allegedly protest against the country’s deteriorating economic conditions and alleged police violence. Truth be told, they’re likely well aware of how their participation feeds into this scenario, but because they’re not publicly announcing it, they’re able to hide behind a thin veneer of ‘plausible deniability’ when they’re accused of being the US’ “useful idiots’. Admittedly, the government itself is responsible for mismanaging part of the country’s economy in response to the US’ disruptive aggression against it, and Mugabe made a major mistake in his 2000 “land reform” package that ultimately ended up destroyingZimbabwe’s agricultural sector, but these incidents in and of themselves should not normally be grounds for launching a violent ‘protest’ movement years after they first occurred.

What’s plausibly occurring then isn’t that some Zimbabweans had a years-long delayed reaction to what has happened to their country, but that these ‘protests’ are engineered by the US as the final form of economic warfare against the country designed to push the fragile system past the tipping point and into a tailspin of collapse. “Stay-away day”, as the first themed protest was called at the beginning of the campaign, was more of a nationwide strike than a protest, and it was meant to instantly exacerbate the country’s economic turmoil and grind society to a halt, which would thereby – as the reasoning suggests – attract more dissatisfied people to the street in joining the burgeoning anti-government movement that the Western media would allege had ‘organically’ sprung up in response. Additionally, this sly form of externally triggered economic civil war (the US’ strategic organization of foreign labor strikers against their own targeted economy) also had the unstated ulterior motive of provoking the authorities into a physical response that could then be used to generate intentionally misleading media reports that in turn induceeven more anti-government hostility among the masses and feed the Color Revolution movement.

Military:

The icing on the cake and the real power multiplier in this entire operation isn’t the Color Revolution figurehead’s religious affiliation or the economic civil war that the US has tried to provoke, but the fact that some respected war veterans from the country’s independence struggle have withdrawn their support for Mugabe and are actively campaigning for his overthrow. They began signaling their discontent earlier this year during a series of government meetings and public statements, but in timed coordination with the Color Revolution that has now broken out, Secretary General of the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA) Victor Matemadanda proclaimedthat “Tsvangirai can be a better enemy because a defined enemy is an enemy you know, but a pretender is much serious, dangerous and can destroy anyone.” He was speaking about the influential G40 faction within the ruling ZANU-PF party that some commentators believe will ascend to power in the wake of Mugabe’s passing, but the salience of his statement is that he is openly plotting to work together with the pro-American ‘opposition’ agent in maneuvering his forces in a post-Mugabe reality. This was preceded by an organizational spokesman voicing support for the Color Revolution, and earlier this year, it’s notable that the veterans were very loud in their opposition to Grace Mugabe and her political allies, obviously positioning themselves as some form of incipient ‘nationalist opposition’ to the government and its leader’s assumed successor.

The involvement of the ZNLWVA is very important and shouldn’t be overlooked by any observers. This constituency, however patriotic it may be, essentially represents an informal ally of the US in weakening popular support for the Mugabe Administration. There’s no objection being raised to the organic development of a patriotic opposition to the government, but it’s just that the ZNLWVA appears to be inadvertently furthering the exact same objective as the US at this moment, which is the diminishment of civil trust in the government and the promotion of a regime change agenda.

There’s likely no contact between American intelligence agencies and this group, and they’d probably immediately reject any outreaches that could be or might have already been made, but the case of ZNLWVA proves that even presumably well intentioned patriotic organizations could unwittingly function as “useful idiots” in lending ‘legitimacy’ to the US’ preplanned scheme, mostly in the pursuit of their own narrow self-interests but possibly also out of the conspiratorial actions of some of its co-opted members. ZNLWVA’s partisanship on the side of the Color Revolutionaries is also meant to exert influence on the military and security forces who might understandably be reluctant to forcibly respond to “their own” if the government orders them to disband the riotous disturbances. The underlying purpose of the veterans’ group is to form the core of a “patriotic-nationalist” opposition against Mugabe that could attract current servicemen and trigger defections, thus weakening the make-or-break powerbrokers that could hold the most control during the uncertain post-Mugabe transitional period (whether he dies or is overthrown).

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the post-graduate of the MGIMO University and author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

This article was originally published in 2011 by Liberation School website. 

You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own,” President Barack Obama told hundreds of cheering U.S. troops in Baghdad on April 7, 2009, his first visit to the country after being elected. He added that now, “Iraqis need to take responsibility for their country.

For brazen hypocrisy and condescension, these words—repeated in essence by virtually all the top civilian and military officials of the Bush and Obama administrations over the past eight years—are hard to beat.

The implication is that before the U.S. invasion and occupation in 2003, Iraq was not able to “stand on its own,” and now the Iraqi people must be prodded to “take responsibility for their country.” This theme is really no different than the racist propaganda used by the colonial powers to justify their murderous exploitation in Africa, Asia, the Americas and the Middle East over hundreds of years.

The real history of Iraq is deliberately distorted or completely ignored by the corporate media and officials here for the simple reason that it utterly demolishes this colonialist narrative.

July 14, 2016, marks the 58rd anniversary of the Iraqi Revolution. The 1958 revolution ended four decades of British domination and marked the beginning of Iraqi independence. The fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, reduced Iraq once more to colonial status, now under U.S. rather than British rule.

Iraq before the 1958 revolution

Iraq is one of the oldest continually inhabited centers of human civilization, long known as Mesopotamia or the “land between the [Tigris and Euphrates] rivers.” Modern Iraq came into being in the aftermath of World War I (1914-18), a war of empires vs. empires. At the end of the war, the winners took over the colonies of the losers. Britain and France took over much of the Middle East from the defeated Turkey-based Ottoman Empire, and divided it up between them.

The former Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul became the new British “mandate” of Iraq. The British were also awarded Palestine by the just-established “League of Nations.” France was given “mandates” over present-day Lebanon and Syria. All were in reality colonies. The mandate system was justified on the supposed basis that the Arab people needed the tutelage of the British and French to prepare for “self-rule.”

The Arab people did not see it that way. In 1919 and 1920, revolts swept the region, from Egypt (also under British control) to Iraq, where the heaviest fighting took place, leaving thousands dead including the British commanding general. In 1925, another uprising, centered in the predominantly Kurdish region of northern Iraq, was answered by the British dropping poison gas from planes on the population.

Because of the fierce resistance to colonial domination by Arabs and Kurds alike, Britain granted Iraq its nominal independence in 1932. But it was independence in name only. The country was ruled by a British-installed monarchy, and continued to be occupied by British military bases.

Intifadas (uprisings) against the rule of British and their Iraqi collaborators, like Nuri as-Said, continued and intensified after the end of World War II.

To fortify their domination, the British promoted the development of a class of big landowners in Iraq, who exported grain, dates and other products. The peasants, who constituted the majority of the population, were treated as serfs–bound to the land and living in utter poverty.

In the 1950s, life expectancy in Iraq was 28-30 years. Infant mortality was estimated at 300-350 per 1,000 live births. By comparison, infant mortality in England at the time was around 25 per 1,000 births.

Illiteracy was more than 80 percent for men and 90 percent for women. Diseases related to malnutrition and unsanitary water were rampant.

A statistical survey at the time showed income of less than 13 Fils—4 cents—per day for individual peasants in Diwaniya, one of the more prosperous agricultural regions.

According to a 1952 World Bank report, the average yearly income for all Iraqis was $82. For peasants it was $21. (“Revolution in Iraq,” Society of Graduates of American Universities in Iraq, 1959)

Neocolonial and landlord rule was maintained by a ruthless secret police/military regime that tortured, murdered and imprisoned countless thousands of Iraqis. Still, the resistance was strong, as evidenced by the fact that Iraq was placed under martial law 11 times between 1935 and 1954, for a total of nine years and four months.

Underlying Iraq’s extreme poverty was this simple fact: oil-rich Iraq owned none of its own oil.

The United States and Iraq

U.S. involvement in Iraq began after World War I. U.S. corporations were granted 23.75 percent of Iraq’s oil as a reward for having entered World War I on the side of the victorious British and French empires. British, French and Dutch oil companies also each received 23.75 percent shares of Iraq’s petroleum resources. The broker of the deal, an Armenian oil baron named Calouste Gulbenkian, got the remaining five percent.

In the latter stages of World War II (1939-1945), the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, dominated by big banking, oil and other corporate interests, were determined to restructure the post-war world to ensure the dominant position of the United States.

The key elements in their strategy were: 1) U.S. military superiority in nuclear and conventional weaponry; 2) U.S. domination of newly created international institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and establishment of the dollar as the world currency; 3) control of global resources, particularly oil.

In pursuit of the latter, the U.S. government was intent on taking control of certain strategic assets of the British Empire, the war-time alliance between the two countries notwithstanding. Among those assets was Iraq.

A February 1944 exchange between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill makes clear that the British were well aware of U.S. intentions. Churchill wrote Roosevelt: “Thank you very much for your assurances about no sheep’s eyes [looking enviously] on our oilfields in Iran and Iraq. Let me reciprocate by giving you the fullest assurance that we have no thought of trying to horn in upon your interests or property in Saudi Arabia.” (quoted in Gabriel Kolko, The Politics of War, 1968)

What this note clearly shows is that the U.S. leaders were so intent on taking over Iran and Iraq, both important neo-colonies of Britain, that alarm bells had been set off in British ruling circles.

Despite Churchill’s bluster, there was nothing the British could do to restrain rising U.S. power. Within a few years, the British ruling class would adapt to the new reality and accept its new role as Washington’s junior partner, a position it continues to occupy today.

In 1953, after the CIA coup that overthrew a nationalist government and put the Shah (king) back in power in Iran, the United States took control of that country. And by the mid-1950s, Iraq was jointly controlled by the United States and Britain.

In 1955, Washington set up the Baghdad Pact, which included its client regimes at the time in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Iraq, along with Britain.

The Baghdad Pact, also called CENTO—Central Treaty Organization, had two purposes. First, to oppose the rise of Arab and other liberation movements in the Middle East and south Asia. And second, to be another in a series of military alliances—NATO, SEATO and ANZUS were the others—encircling the socialist camp of the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, North Korea and North Vietnam.

The Iraqi Revolution

But on July 14, 1958, a military rebellion led by Brigadier Abd al-Karim Qasim and the Free Officers movement turned into a country-wide revolution. The king and his administration were suddenly gone, the recipients of people’s justice.

The 1958 revolution put an end to colonial domination and marked the beginning of Iraq’s real independence. Although the Iraqi Communist Party was the biggest organized force among the revolutionary forces, the revolution did not lead to a socialist transformation of the country. The ICP strategy was an alliance with the anti-colonial nationalist bourgeoisie.

Though not a socialist revolution, the Iraqi Revolution created panic in Washington and on Wall Street. President Dwight Eisenhower called it “the gravest crisis since the Korean War.

The day after the Iraqi Revolution, 20,000 U.S. Marines began landing in Lebanon. The day after that, 6,600 British paratroopers were dropped into Jordan.

The U.S. and British expeditionary forces went in to save the neo-colonial governments in Lebanon and Jordan. Had they not, the popular impulse from Iraq would have surely brought down the Western-dependent regimes in Beirut and Amman.

But Eisenhower and his generals had something else in mind as well: invading Iraq, overturning the revolution and re-installing a puppet government in Baghdad.

Three factors forced Washington to abandon that plan in 1958: 1) the sweeping character of the Iraqi Revolution; 2) the announcement by the United Arab Republic—Syria and Egypt were then one state that bordered Iraq—that its forces would fight the imperialists if they sought to invade; and 3) strong support for the revolution from the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union. The USSR began to mobilize troops in the southern Soviet republics close to Iraq.

U.S. marines on the streets of Beirut the following day of Iraq’s 1958 revolution.

U.S. marines on the streets of Beirut the following day of Iraq’s 1958 revolution.

The combination of these factors forced the U.S. leaders to accept the existence of the Iraqi Revolution. But Washington never really reconciled itself to the loss of Iraq.

Over the next three decades, the United States applied many tactics designed to weaken and undermine Iraq as an independent country. At various times—for instance after Iraq completed nationalizing the Iraqi Petroleum Company in 1972 and signed a defense treaty with the USSR—the United States gave massive military support to Kurdish elements fighting Baghdad and added Iraq to its list of “terrorist states.”

Washington supported the more rightist elements within the post-revolution political structure against the communist and left-nationalist forces. For example, the United States backed the overthrow and assassination of President Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963 by a right-wing military grouping. And Washington applauded the suppression of the left and unions by the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party governments in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the 1980s, the United States encouraged and helped to fund and arm Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, in its war against Iran. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger revealed the real U.S. attitude about the war: “I hope they kill each other.”

Bourgeois governments in both Iran and Iraq pursued the war for expansionist aims. The war was a disaster for both Iran and Iraq, killing a million people and weakening both countries.

Social advances

Despite the numerous internal and external conflicts, Iraq made rapid strides forward in development after the 1958 revolution and particularly following the complete nationalization of oil operations in 1972.

Billions of dollars of oil revenue paid for development of water and sewage treatment facilities, modern roads, ports, railways and airports, and electrification even for many remote areas of the country.

Iraq created the best health care system in the region, and health care was free. So, too, was education through university. Food was subsidized and food imports greatly increased in order to meet the needs of the population.

By virtually all indices that measure social progress—literacy, infant and maternal mortality, life expectancy, etc.—Iraq’s progress was extraordinarily dramatic.

Many students from Africa and poorer Arab countries received scholarships that covered all expenses to attend Iraqi universities. Iraq educated and trained hundreds of thousands of doctors, engineers, nurses, scientists and other personnel needed to lead and operate a rapidly modernizing society. Women, particularly in the urban areas, made major gains.

At the same time, Iraq was still a developing country and highly dependent on one commodity: oil. When the sanctions blockade was imposed on Iraq in 1990, it was importing 65 percent of its medicine, 70 percent of its food and up to 100 percent of infrastructure and other goods, paying for them with oil revenues.

The collapse of the USSR and the Gulf War

Shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, developments in the Soviet Union posed a new threat to Iraq. In pursuit of an illusory “permanent détente” with the United States, the Gorbachev leadership in Moscow was eliminating or sharply cutting back its support for allies in the developing world.

In 1989, Gorbachev withdrew support for the socialist governments in Eastern Europe, most of which then collapsed. This sharp shift in the world relationship of forces, culminating with the fall of the Soviet Union itself two years later, opened the door for the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991—and for more than a decade of sanctions/blockade and bombing that severely weakened Iraq and its people.

It would have been inconceivable even a few years earlier that Soviet leaders would have stood by while the United States sent more than half a million troops to attack a nearby country with which the USSR had a mutual defense agreement.

Rather than ushering in a new era of peace, the counter-revolutionary overturn of the governments of the USSR and the socialist camp was seen in Washington as the green light for a new round of wars and interventions.

In the 1991 war, more than 88,500 tons of bombs were dropped on Iraq. While U.S. leaders justified the war on the basis of Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait after a long and bitter dispute, U.S. military tactics showed that the main aim was to destroy Iraq. The civilian infrastructure throughout the country—water, power, phone and sewage systems, food and medicine production, storage facilities, schools and hospitals, roads and bridges, and more—were targeted, often many times over. Military targets and troops were also hit, with an estimated 125,000 Iraqi soldiers killed.

Blockaded and bombed for 13 years

The sanctions passed by the UN Security Council at the behest of the United States on August 6, 1990, were killing people even before the bombing began five months later. The sanctions on Iraq were the most comprehensive in history; in reality, it was a blockade of the country, enforced by military means that was to last for 13 years, killing more than 1 million people, half of them children under the age of five.

Through the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush up to the 2003 invasion, Iraq was bombed several times per week, with several periods of intense assault. There were numerous coup attempts organized by the CIA. And the death toll from the blockade was relentless, as U.S. officials were well aware.

On May 12, 1996, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, appeared on the TV show “60 Minutes.” Albright was asked by reporter Leslie Stahl, who had just returned from Iraq, about the impact of the sanctions: “We have heard that a half million children have died, I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright’s response was a rare exposure of the real thinking of the imperialist policymakers: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.” >

Still, the desired goal of regime change, which became official U.S. policy when Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, was not achieved. It became clear that regime change could only be achieved by a military invasion.

After a protracted public relations campaign—demonizing Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders, attempting to link Iraq to the Sept. 11 attack, fabricating claims that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” including nuclear weapons—U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003.

In April 2003, the U.S. and British rulers finally achieved what they had wanted to do since July 1958: counter-revolution in Iraq. While U.S. leaders and their corporate media had relentlessly promoted the idea that their goal of “regime change” simply involved removing the ultra-demonized Hussein and his immediate circle, in reality, Washington’s aim was to destroy everything that made Iraq an independent state.

The entire government and state apparatus was disbanded, from the military to the government ministries to the state-run food-distribution and health-care systems.

Early in the war, U.S. military forces seized the great prize in Iraq, the rich oil fields in the north and south. Iraq holds an estimated 12 percent of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia.

In the eight-plus years since, it is estimated that more than 1 million Iraqi “excess deaths”—deaths due to the occupation—have occurred. There have been 4.5 million Iraqis displaced internally or out of the country. The number of wounded remains uncounted, but must also be in the millions. All of this in a country of about 27 million people.

The social fabric of the country has been ripped apart due to the occupation. The occupiers have favored some ethnic and religious groups against others.

In a country where the long summers frequently see temperatures over 120 degrees, electricity is less available than even in the time of the sanctions.

Millions of tons of toxic waste, including depleted uranium used in bullets and shells, have been dumped in Iraq by the occupation forces.

Iraq has suffered extreme looting by the occupiers. Just one example is that, on July 27, 2010, the U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction released a report stating that the Pentagon cannot account for 95 percent of the Development Fund for Iraq.

The DFI was set up by L. Paul Bremer, who ruled Iraq as virtual dictator for the first 15 months of the occupation. The $9.1 billion in the account came from Iraq’s frozen assets in the United States and other countries, and the sale of Iraqi oil. Of that amount, $8.7 billion is “missing.” No one has been charged with any crime nor is any crime even alleged by the U.S. authorities.

Countering the ludicrous claim that the U.S. occupation has “given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own,” a Mercer Quality of Living survey released on May 26, 2010, ranked Baghdad—one of the truly great and historic cities of the world—dead last in a list of “most livable cities.”

What Iraq needs and deserves from the United States is not more dishonest and insulting speeches, but instead a complete end to the occupation and reparations for the terrible damage done.

Despite all the indescribable horrors they have suffered, the Iraqi people have not given up and will continue their struggle until they regain what they first won 53 years ago—real independence and sovereignty.

In an interview with Hala Gorani of CNN, the man who served as Tony (the war criminal) Blair’s Director of Communications from 1997 to 2003, Alastair Campbell, denounced referendums as a danger to democracy. Campbell is clearly enraged that the British people had the audacity to vote against the wishes of the establishment; and his remarks are the epitome of elitist thinking – which holds that ordinary people are too stupid to make important decisions on their own.

We pick the conversation up just after Campbell discusses the surge in working class people who voted for Brexit in the UK, and are supporting Donald Trump in the US:

Gorani: “Is that a failure of the establishment in not having responded for decades to real concerns of how globalisation has hurt common, ordinary workers?”

Campbell: “Absolutely it is. But the point is… this is why referendums… I said this the day after the last general election; I was on BBC Question Time and the first question was will Britain leave the EU? I said I hoped not, because I hope the British people will save the politicians from themselves; and I said then and was howled down for being anti-democratic: referendums are dangerous in a parliamentary democracy.”

Gorani: “Why is that?”

Campbell: “Because we’ve had a referendum in one of the most ill-informed, lying debates that I can ever recall anywhere in the world. We’ve been like a banana republic in the last few days; this has been a joke.”

So in Campbell’s view, the Brexit referendum is “dangerous” because the people of Britain had been lied to by the leave campaign in the run-up to the vote. This is coming from the man who was a pivotal figure in disseminating the tsunami of lies, fear and war propaganda in order to convince the public that Britain had to launch the most destructive war of the 21st century: the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The man who was an integral part of pushing the slogan that the West was ‘bringing democracy to the Middle East;’ believes a democratic vote in Britain is “dangerous.”

Campbell was responsible for circulating the two fraudulent dossiers – the September and the Iraq – into the mainstream media in order to convince the British people that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ It was revealed in 2010 that Campbell had ordered the September dossier to be altered to fit more in line with a speech from George (the war criminal) Bush in 2002, after Bush stated that Iraq would be able to build a nuclear bomb within a year, whereas the initial draft of the British dossier said it would be at least two years.

Campbell is also regurgitating the Orwellian propaganda line that is being spread throughout the Western media: that somehow a democratic referendum is undemocratic. Just because the vote flew in the face of the British establishment, the presstitutes are engaging in intellectual jujitsu in order to demonise the leave vote. Would they be doing so if Britain voted to remain in the EU? I think not.

The Guardian (which was pro-remain) is at the forefront of pushing this narrative. This is evident in their article titled: Can we have our parliamentary democracy back please? The article actually quotes former British PM, Clement Attlee, who said referendums have too “often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism.” It’s just ridiculous; this is spin on steroids – trying to associate a democratic referendum with fascism.

Considering the fact that Britain commits incessant crimes overseas in the name of democracy, it is abhorrent that the democratic wishes of the British people are being marginalized by the establishment.

The establishment is terrified of direct democracy, and giving the people votes on issues that actually matter. The majority of parliamentarians in the UK are in the pocket of special interests, and represent the interests of the people in no way, shape, or form.

In Britain’s ‘great parliamentary democracy,’ the people were taken into a war (despite widespread public opposition) that killed and destroyed the lives of millions of innocent people in 2003. Britain’s ‘great parliamentary democracy’ has brought the people a surveillance state beyond the Stasi’s wildest dreams, in addition to involving Britain in Libya, Syria and countless other abominations. How can the people do any worse than our great parliamentarians?

The Western elite are terrified of democracy, and they view the wishes of the people as a danger to their rule. If the British people voted in favour of remaining within the EU, the establishment would not be demonising the vote as “dangerous” and fascistic.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.