Does Bernie Sanders Have a ‘Plan B’?

June 6th, 2016 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

Does Bernie Sanders have a ‘Plan B’? We’ll soon know after the California Democratic Party primary election on Tuesday, June 7.

Even if Sanders wins California, the Democratic Party nomination was wrapped up in favor of Hillary Clinton some time ago. 712 of the 2,383 nominating delegates—composed of party operatives, members of Congress, state and local party officials, local party hacks, and assorted ‘wannabes’ wanting someday to get the party endorsement to run for some local office—constitute the ‘super delegates’ appointed by senior party leadership. Democratic party rules allow super delegates to vote as they please, regardless of how other party members in their states vote in their official primary elections. Thus far 520 of the Democrats’ 712 super delegates have already declared their support for Hillary and did so months ago. The vast majority of those left will no doubt do so soon after June 7.

The Democrats introduced the super delegate system back in 1982, in order to prevent another populist upsurge in the early 1970s with the grass roots George McGovern campaign; and as a response to another outsider, Jimmy Carter, who turned out to be a disaster for the party in the 1980 election.

Democratic Party leadership has never been comfortable with primaries. The primaries process is really a product of the early 1970s when various grass roots movements were emerging in the USA—antiwar, women, black and latino, environmental. Primaries are tolerated so long as they don’t challenge party leadership control. Sometimes a candidate from below slips under the fence—like McGovern in 1972 or Trump today in 2016. The leaders then revise their rules to patch up the hole in the fence.

There have been many undemocratic trends emerging in the US in recent years, state and local voting restrictions, illegal purging of citizens from the voter rolls, court cases giving big money donors advantages, limits on third party candidates running for office. Following this election cycle the Republican party elite will no doubt do its fence mending to prevent another Trump. And almost for certain, Democrats party leaders will never allow another ‘independent’, like Sanders, to ever content for their party’s nomination. Sanders has given them a political scare. The Democratic party fence will undergo some major rewiring.

So why did Bernie run in the first place? Did he naively think he could overturn the super-delegate system at the party convention? Or was it always about injecting ideas into the campaign that were once part of the Democratic Party but which the party has steadily abandoned since the 1980s? Did he think he could actually reform an un-reformable party firmly in the hands of its corporate donors—at the convention or even after? Was it about starting a movement that would continue beyond the 2016 elections?

So what’s Sanders going to do after California? What’s his Plan B? Some of possible Plan B options might include:

First, run as an independent candidate—either announcing in June or waiting until after the Democratic convention in late July. If Sanders waits, however, running as an independent would be a ‘quixotic’ effort. Many US states make it extremely difficult for independents to run in general and even more so on short notice. So if Sanders does not announce as an independent candidate soon after June 7, it is extremely unlikely he will ever do so. In recent weeks, a movement has emerged in his camp to get him to run as an independent. Or even join with the Green party’s presidential hopeful, Jill Stein, on some kind of joint ticket.

Second, he could indicate the fight is not over, and Plan B is to court the super delegates at the convention. Perhaps he still believes he can convince a sufficient number of independent delegates to shift from Hillary to himself at the convention. Or that his supporters can dilute or the super delegates effect by taking over the convention’s rules or credentials committees. But if that’s Plan B, it’s extremely naïve. Careerists and party hacks, who hope to rise in the party structure, or who enjoy being local notables in the party in their districts, are not going to challenge the party’s leadership. Especially after they’ve already publicly declared for Hillary. Plan B may be ‘in consideration’, but it’s a plan that’s DOA—dead on arrival as they say.

Third, even if Hillary has a conclusive majority of delegates after Tuesday, Sanders could say the fight continues to the convention to ensure that the party ‘platform’ of political positions reflects the views of his supporters and others who have become disenchanted with the Democratic party’s policies since Bill Clinton and the ‘Democratic Leadership Conference’ (DLC) corporate-leaning faction consolidated its control over the party in the early 1990s. But if that’s Plan B it’s a political farce. Party position platforms mean absolutely nothing. They are ‘feel good’ statements designed to create an appealing public image. Party platforms have, however, nothing to do with proposals, programs, or actual legislative or executive actions taken by party politicians once in office. Check out the Democrats’ 2008 and 2012 party convention platforms and compare that to the reality of Obama and other party proposals and initiatives that followed.

Should Sanders indicate his ‘Plan B’ is to lead the fight to ensure democratic and populist language in the party platform, it will mean Sanders has ‘thrown in the towel’ and it’s game over for all his supporters who want to make a basic change in US politics and take back the party from corporate-type leaders. Platform fights are designed to give newcomer delegate ranks something to do at the convention, to make them think they are making a difference. Platform fights are a political sandbox.

A fourth possible ‘Plan B’ could find Sanders’ calling, in radical language, for a democratic revolution to fundamentally change the Democratic Party—the fight which starts at the convention but which will continue intensely thereafter, win or lose to Trump, to prepare for the subsequent, really important 2020 national elections. There will be hot rhetoric, and Sanders will ride off into the sunset, at age 74, after the election going on college campus tours, liberal talk radio shows, writing a book, and settling into a dean of the new liberal left squatting at the doorstep of the Democratic party for the next four years. Or maybe Hillary will offer him a minor cabinet position.

There’s also a ‘wildcard’ fifth Plan B. Sanders and supporters may be trying to position him for the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee. Smarter sources in the Democratic Party might well pay heed to that, since it is becoming increasingly clear that Hillary may lose the election to Trump. She desperately needs Sanders’ supporters. Sanders has the vast majority of the youth vote, 18-34, behind him, as well as some intellectuals, and a slice of the Unions. Hillary cannot win without them. In the key northeast and west coast states, Sanders beats Hillary by margins. Hillary wins in the south, Midwest, and conservative areas. But these are regions she will never carry against Trump in the general election. If young voters stay home, if a significant part of the unskilled working class goes with Trump, which it will, and if the Obama economy slides over the summer, which it may appear about to do, then Hillary is ‘toast’, as they say. She needs Sanders’ but don’t count on the party establishment to give that alternative serious consideration.

Of the five possible ‘Plan B’ options, most likely are options 2, 3 and 4 or some combination of the same. They are all dead-ends for popular reform politics in the US. Option 1, to run as a true independent third candidate will not happen. Sanders himself declared early in the campaign he would support whomever the party nominee was and he will keep that commitment. Option 5, as a vice president nominee is barely less likely than option 1.

Plan B is therefore most likely one the middle options. And we shall see which soon after the California primary. All of those will greatly disappoint Sanders’ supporters wanting fundamental change in the political party system in the US. That party system now is really a single ‘Corporate Party of America’ system with two wings—Republican and Democrat.

Plan B will prove to be a harsh learning lesson for many determined young reformers. What they are now experiencing is a learning process with the hardest lessons yet to come—i.e. to discover that there is no way out of the US current political crisis through either wings of the Corporate Party of America. Maybe then a grass roots movement of the growing legions of the discontented in the US will be able to emerge into a truly independent political party in the US.

Jack Rasmus is author of ‘Systemic Fragility’ in the Global Economy’, Clarity Press, January 2016, and the forthcoming, ‘Looting Greece: An Emerging New Financial Imperialism’, Clarity Press, July 2016. He hosts the New York radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network, and blogs atjackrasmus.com . 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Does Bernie Sanders Have a ‘Plan B’?

Obama Slams Door in Putin’s Face: Says If Putin Doesn’t Want Russia’s Retaliatory Forces Eliminated, He’ll Need to Be the One to Press the Nuclear Button First

June 6th, 2016 by Eric Zuesse

Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin.

On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”

Russia’s concern is that, if the “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works, then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System”, will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere, and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable probems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.

That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction) was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining “The Rise of Nuclear Primacy” and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.

Paul Craig Roberts was the first reporter in the West to write in a supportive way about Russia’s concerns that Barack Obama might be a follower of that theory. One of Roberts’s early articles on this was issued on 17 June 2014 and headlined “Washington Is Beating The War Drums”, where he observed that “US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack.”

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has tried many times to raise this issue with President Obama, the most recent such instance being via a public statement of his concern, made on May 27th. Apparently, the public statement by Antonov on June 5th is following up on that latest Putin effort, by Antonov’s announcement there that Obama now explicitly refuses to discuss Putin’s concerns about the matter.

The fact that these efforts on the part of the Russian government are via public media instead of via private conversations (such as had been the means used during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. President was concerned about the Soviet President’s installation of nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. border) suggests that Mr. Obama, unlike U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1962, refuses to communicate with Russia, now that the U.S. is potentially in the position of the aggressor.

Russia is making its preparations, just in case it will (because of the Aegis Ashore system) need to be the first to attack. However, some knowledgeable people on the subject say that Russia will never strike first. Perhaps U.S. President Obama is proceeding on the basis of a similar assumption, and this is the reason why he is refusing to discuss the matter with his Russian counterpart. However, if Mr. Obama wishes to avoid a nuclear confrontation, then refusing even to discuss the opponent’s concerns would not be the way to go about doing that. Obama is therefore sending signals to the contrary — that he is preparing a nuclear attack against Russia — simply by his refusal to discuss the matter. In this case, his action of refusal is, itself, an answer to Putin’s question, like slamming the door in Putin’s face would be. It’s a behavioral answer, instead of a merely verbal one.

The geostrategist John Helmer discussed on May 30th the question of when the “Trigger Point” will likely be for Putin to decide whether there is no reasonable alternative but to launch — and for him then to launch — World War III.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Slams Door in Putin’s Face: Says If Putin Doesn’t Want Russia’s Retaliatory Forces Eliminated, He’ll Need to Be the One to Press the Nuclear Button First

Millimeter Microwaves: ‘Anti-Terror’ Artificial Intelligence Scanners

June 6th, 2016 by Pippa King

There is a new technology being tested for use on UK civilians en masse on our streets, millimetre microwave scanners.

These electromagnetic radiation scanners, which use Ultra Wide Band (UWB) at 75-110 GHz, are able to be beamed at crowds to detect potential concealed weapons being carried by individuals.

Using the same technology as the American airport TSA scanners, over which there has been much controversy in the level of detail these scanners reveal about an individual, MiRTLE, provided by Radio Physics Solutions (RPS) purports to use artificial intelligence (AI) to identify weapon shaped objects without the system revealing the human body image.

Practically this would make sense, as a human operator seeing a crowd of people imaged by‘millimetre’ microwaves would not be able to effectively scan the crowd for weapon shaped objects or suicide vests. Hence the use of AI.

Note that security workers, particularly those working at airports, have been drilled in various PR talking points in order to assuage public concerns on this experimental technology, including the popular corporate line that, “It’s perfectly safe – it’s on only millimeter microwaves.”

MICROWAVES

IMPORTANT POINT: This technology is funded by us, to be used on us. Funded by us, via our taxes paid out to various UK government departments and police.

The UK Department of Business Innovation and Skills oversees the UK Research Councils, one of which is the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) who, along with the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office Scientific Development Branch, funded the research into this technology as early as 2009 with research starting back in 2004 at Manchester Metropolitan University by Professor Bowring, Head of the Centre for Sensing and Imaging at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU).

“It is designed to work out on the streets and is not (restricted) to a closed, controlled environment,” Professor Bowring [from Manchester Met University] told BBC News.

According to the UK Business Angels Association and the Mayor of London’s Office document for the Smart London Investor Showcase held in March 2016, RPS are working with “major UK police forces (including London’s Metropolitan Police), Counter Terrorism Command & the Home Office (CAST)”.
(The Smart London Showcase is part of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson’s, Smart London Plan, published in December 2013.)

EMF
On the RPS website MiRTLE apparently can be applied in the following scenarios: transportation, schools, private security, government, event security, and defense. Note, the order is listed as per their website.

Soft civilian targets first and military use last, with the inference that it keeps the general population ‘safe’. However, the main agencies interested in these products are not schools or transport companies, it is the military.

The Dalton Institute, based at the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Manchester Metropolitan University heading the research, lists “expressions of interest” from the US Department of Defence, US Army Laboratories and from the US Navy. The Dalton Institute also go on to say that because of the sensitive nature of the project they have rejected enquiries from the media apart from two articles the BBC published in 2009 and 2013.

According to the Smart London Showcase RPS are working in conjunction with another company called SeeQuestor, which amalgamates different CCTV systems to make ‘dumb’ CCTV ‘smart’ therefore enabling different systems to ‘talk’ to each other This about SeeQuestor from the Wired article from August 2015 “One Nation Under CCTV: The Future of Automated Surveillance”:

New technology could allow police and security services to quickly analyse CCTV footage to look for movement, faces and track suspects across the world. By linking ‘dumb’ CCTV cameras to a ‘smart’ online system, authorities will soon be able to find and track anyone.

Between RPS scanners on the ground and SeeQuestor operating behind CCTV cameras their combined technologies, via AI, would potentially scan crowds of people and assess threat levels, such as crowds accumulating, street footfall, the ability to pick out faces in crowds, identify people carrying weapon shaped items and thereby identify persons of interest with the capability to track them via the security camera network.

Although RPS scanners work in real time SeeQuestor is only able to look at historic past video data. However according to the UK Business Angels Association and the Mayor of London’s Officedocument for the Smart London Investor Showcase (see page 14) SeeQuestor are “a post event video analysis and management tool to help police and security professionals such as counter terrorism solve crimes and save lives by finding people in video data. And is now raising money to develop a real time product, integrating smart sensors from its partner company – Radio Physics Solutions – (the only solution worldwide) that can detect threats such as suicide vests and guns, hidden beneath clothing from a distance of 30-40 metres. For a smart, automated network capable of identifying threats and the persons carrying those threats, so they can be tracked and dealt with ahead of time.”

A fully automated really time surveillance system with AI identifying possible threat scenarios, this is the shared vision of RPS and SeeQuestor. Both RPS and SeeQuestor are funded by investors through a company called Anglo Scientific, a private equity firm, with the boards of directors of both companies comprising of Anglo Scientific employees. Anglo Scientific also own the Intellectual Property right of the millimetre microwave technology, which now through their investors, RPS are developing.  Professor Nick Bowring and the other developers at MMU holding the patent for this technology.

We, via our taxes, have invested around £1m for this surveillance system, for a private equity firm to then set up RPS and benefit from research we paid for. RPS were incorporated in 2008 byDouglas Dundonald, a director of Anglo Scientific and ex House of Lords Conservative Peer where he held a position on the council of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. Other RPS directors are Vito Levi D’Ancona – Chief Financial Officer director of Anglo Scientific and Ricky Posner, Non-Executive Director at Anglo Scientific.

Although, RPS are working with the Met Police and the technology is not yet used on us, the surveillance systems that are ready to be built into our society in the name of ‘smart’ cities are so very advanced. The FBI and US police are looking at a recently patented integrated license plate reader (LPR), speedometer, and facial recognition device. Such systems of course can be integrated with video footage analysis, traffic management and now the new kid on the block – millimeter microwave scanning.

Where would this ultra wideband microwave scanning stop? Will this tech be built into lampposts to scan us for concealed weapons? Maybe it could be built into the UK Automated Number Plate Recognition camera network, scanning our cars to see what the contents are? The UK Home Office and police have a track record of implementing surveillance technologies without any public or parliamentary debate. Facial recognition is used on the Police National Database of millions of custody suite images, this was quietly slipped in early 2014, with no discussion or mention in the media. After their use of the biometric facial recognition technology came to light in late 2014, the Home Office were instructed to report to parliament early 2015 on their use of facial recognition. As of May 2016 they have not submitted that report.

The article across at ArsTechnica, which detailed the combined license plate recognition, speedometer and facial recognition has the below video… the vision of the world to come.


.
There seems a lack of transparency when using privacy invasive technologies en masse on us in society.  A Freedom of Information request was sent to the Metropolitan Police 17 May 2016 on their use of millimetre microwave technology which is due back 15 June 2016.

***
Author and researcher Pippa King is a special contributor to 21WIRE and she is the co-editor of the public advocacy blog State of Surveillance and founder of the information portal Biometrics in Schools.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Millimeter Microwaves: ‘Anti-Terror’ Artificial Intelligence Scanners

Provoking the Russian Bear: NATO Is “Cannon Fodder” for the American Empire

June 6th, 2016 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

BALTOPS 16 is a military exercise now taking place between June 3 and June 18 in the Baltic Sea region which is in close proximity to Russia. The U.S. Naval Institute (www.usni.org) released an article titled ‘Analysis: Larger NATO Baltic Sea Exercise Sends Important Message to Russia’ stated what BALTOPS 16 will consist of:

Over the next three weeks BALTOPS 16 will draw together some 6,000 personnel, 45 warships, and 60 aircraft from 17 nations, including the United States, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, along with the littoral states of the Baltic States who are NATO members (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Denmark) or NATO partners (Sweden and Finland)

To make matters worse, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military and intelligence organization mostly funded by the US government and the rest by the EU (technically paid for by taxpayers within the U.S. and the E.U.) is moving forward by placing missile defense systems in Romania, a reckless move that threatens Russia’s security. According to a recent CNN report “The United States launched a ground-based missile defense system earlier this month in Romania. The system is meant to defend Europe against rogue states like Iran and not intended to target Moscow’s missiles, Washington has said.” Iran is a threat to Europe? In 2014, Putin was asked about NATO’s American–made missile defense system placed in Europe to counter the Iranian threat: Here is the classic reaction from Putin:

This time, Washington’s willingness to use Romania to place its missile defense shield supposedly against Iran’s nuclear threat is not a laughing matter to the Russian government. Putin warned European countries they are now in the “crosshairs” meaning European nations will be in the middle of a possible future conflict between Russia and the US-NATO alliance. Reuters reported Putin’s reaction in a news conference that took place in Athens, Greece with Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. Putin said “If yesterday in those areas of Romania people simply did not know what it means to be in the cross-hairs, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security.”Putin did not leave out Poland’s participation regarding the deployment a missile defense system when he said “It will be the same case with Poland.” Polish Minister of Defense Antoni Macierewicz recently announced that NATO will place four battalions in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to counter the Russian threat. Poland is also recruiting 35,000 new recruits for a paramilitary force to counter any Russian incursion on its territory.

Washington’s European vassal states are on the road to social, political and economic destruction. The European Union’s (EU) sanctions on Russia is one example on how farmers, working class people and various businesses are experiencing financial difficulties and even bankruptcy due to US-NATO’s reckless policies against Russia.

Washington’s move to place a new ground-based missile defense system in Romania with Poland’s recruitment drive and the BALTOPS 16 exercise will surely raise tensions with Russia which are at an all time high since the Cold War. Russia views this move as a threat to its security with NATO’s encirclement of Russia is as reckless and as dangerous as you can get in terms of escalating the possibility of a disastrous war.

The RAND Corporation Admits NATO Cannot Defeat Russian Forces

Russia is more than prepared to fight a war against NATO which would not last more than three days at best according to the Rand Corporation, a think tank based in Santa Monica, California. The Rand corporation employed well-known players in the political arena including war criminal Henry Kissinger as an advisor and George W. Bush-era Neocons such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (former Chairman of the board 1981-1986 and again in 1995-1996) and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was a former intern and trustee. The RAND corporation report admitted that a NATO war against Russia would last between 36 and 60 hours although I personally think that NATO would not last more than 24 hours if an attack took place against the Russian Federation:

In a series of war games conducted between summer 2014 and spring 2015, the RAND Corporation examined the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours

If NATO were that foolish to start a war against Russia, European countries across Western Europe would be open to Russian missile strikes crippling Europe’s already fragile social and economic fabric. An attack on Russia would be the end of NATO, literally. Russia has capabilities that are far more advanced than what the U.S. and NATO forces have in their arsenal as independent geopolitical analyst and writer Pepe Escobar explains:

If push comes to nuclear shove, the S-400 and especially the S-500 anti-missile missiles would block all incoming US ICBMs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft. Offensive drones would be blocked by drone defenses. The S-500 practically consigns to the dustbin stealth warplanes such as the F-22, F-35 and the B-2.

The bottom line is that Russia – in terms of hypersonic missile development – is about four generations ahead of the US, if we measure it by the development of the S-300, S-400 and S-500 systems. As a working hypothesis, we could describe the next system – already in the drawing boards – as the S-600. It would take the US military at least ten years to develop and roll out a new weapons system, which in military terms represents a generation. Every Pentagon planner worth his pension plan should know that

NATO is responsible for creating disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was the start of NATO’s belligerence in the name of “humanitarian interventions” during what was known as the Kosovo War. NATO claimed that the Albanian population in Kosovo was persecuted by Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) which was the state of the union between two republics (Serbia and Montenegro) of the former Yugoslavia which broke up in 1991. NATO sought authorization from the United Nations Security Council to proceed with military action but Russia and China opposed and threatened to veto the move. NATO went on to launch military strikes with Washington’s approval against the FRY without UN authorization and called it a“humanitarian intervention.” The FRY rightly called it an illegal war of aggression that resulted in more than 12,000 civilian deaths where the majority of victims were Albanians followed by Serbs, Roma and other ethnic groups. After the war in Yugoslavia, NATO began to see itself as a global military force and expanded beyond Europe (with Washington’s permission of course) into Central Asia, East and North Africa, the Middle East and even as far as the Indian Ocean.

The purpose for NATO is to carry out the American Empire’s dirty work which serves Washington’s strategy for dominating Eurasia. You can also call NATO “America’s Cannon Fodder in waiting” since they are at the frontline against Russia waiting to commit suicide.

Europe’s Refugee Crises and NATO’s Interventions in the Middle East and North Africa

The Pentagon utilizes NATO against its perceived enemies which have contributed to numerous geopolitical disasters including the most recent “humanitarian intervention” of Libya. The stupidity of NATO’s interventionist policies in Libya and now Syria resulted in a refugee crisis into the European Union with Libyans and Syrians leading the way. The refugee crisis is steering tensions among EU citizens who are angry at the refugees, but not at NATO“humanitarian interventions” in North Africa and the Middle East. One of the most absurd statements on the EU’s refugee crisis was by NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove which was reported by theFinancial Times on March 1st, 2016:

Asked at a Senate hearing whether Russia was aggravating the Syrian refugee crisis in order to divide countries in the EU, he replied: “I can’t find any other reason for them [air strikes against civilians] other than to cause refugees to be on the move and make them someone else’s problem.” He added: “I use the term weaponisation of immigration”

Russia is now accused of “Weaponising” immigrants by General Breedlove is absurd. Let’s take a closer look why immigrants are coming from the Middle East and North Africa in the first place. The majority of immigrants are coming from Syria and then there is Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya, Albania, Mali and Somalia which experienced some form of US-NATO led “humanitarian interventions”. Then Eritrea and Nigeria were also nations contributing refugees to the European Union. The US government is responsible for creating the refugee crisis into Europe, not Russia. Let’s not forget what General Wesley Clark admitted to in 2007 in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Nowwhen he was told by someone in the Pentagon that “We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

The U.S. and its allies including Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf puppet states were all involved in creating the civil war in Syria in 2011 through a proxy opposition group to oust President Bashar al-Assad. The“protests” were orchestrated by a covert operation led by US-NATO-Israeli intelligence agencies to create chaos in order to fault the Syrian government through propaganda. Washington and Israel want to destabilize Syria as a Nation State and break-up Syria into several small nation-states easier for the governments of the U.S. and Israel to control. Israel’s interest in destabilizing Syria goes back decades, perhaps as far back when the State of Israel was declared a new independent state in 1948. However, in September 24, 2010 Wikileaks published an email sent to U.S. Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton from Alec Ross, a Senior Advisor for Innovation to Clinton when she was Secretary of State titled ’1st known case of a successful social media campaign in Syria’, Ross wrote “When Jared and I went to Syria, it was because we knew that Syrian society was growing increasingly young (population will double in 17 years) and digital and that this was going to create disruptions in society that we could potential harness for our purposes.”It is evident that Washington had its designs on Syria before the 2011 protests occurred. Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Director and founder of Global Research published an article asking the question of who was actually behind the protests. The article titled ‘Five Years Ago: The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria. Who Was Behind The 2011 “Protest Movement”?’Stated the following facts on who was actually involved in the process:

From Day One, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command. According to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka, August14, 2011):

NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)

This initiative, which was also supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, involved a process of organized recruitment of thousands of jihadist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (Ibid, emphasis added) These mercenaries were subsequently integrated into US and allied sponsored terrorist organizations including Al Nusrah and ISIS. The Daraa “protest movement” on March 17-18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence

US-NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” in Libya was also part of Washington’s strategic goal. Removing President Muammar Gaddafi from power was to control Libya’s natural resources and for the Western powers to remain in the African Continent as a dominant force politically and economically. The West also wanted Africa to use its currencies instead of Gaddafi’s plan for the gold dinar. The West preferred their corporations and their special interest groups to exploit Libya’s natural resources and its gold reserves. Refugees are also coming from Kosovo (Is this where a statue of U.S. President of Bill Clinton is located?); Mali, Albania and several other countries where some sort of US-NATO involvement took place, but Washington and the main-stream media insist that Russia is to blame.

All of the countries just mentioned contributed to Europe’s refugee crisis leads us to conclude that it was the US government and its NATO patsies who intervened in one way or another that caused the crisis. Who believes General Breedlove’s nonsense? What is insane is that NATO’s interventions in the Middle East and North Africa affects Europe’s borders due to the EU’s new immigration policies which eventually puts a strain on the economy. The European taxpayers eventually end up paying for the housing, food and other benefits for the refugees.

US-NATO actions are the cause and effect due to its “humanitarian interventions.” Wars breed death and destruction. Wars also breed mass migrations of families who flee their war torn countries in search of safety and new economic opportunities to survive. NATO is truly sowing the seeds of destruction for Europe and the rest of the world. When will the European citizenry stop NATO’s irresponsible foreign interventions that are not only destroying Nation-states in various regions in the world, but their own territories as well? Maybe they should blame European politicians in Brussels that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place? Would that change anything? I doubt it; besides, NATO is just a gaggle of vassal states that are mainly controlled by American politicians, Wall Street, corporations and special interests groups located across the Atlantic Ocean.

Can NATO’s War against Russia be its Last War?

Russia will not attack NATO forces on its borders nor will they allow an attack on its territory by NATO forces even if it means launching its nuclear weapons to protect itself. An article published by Dmitry Orlov, editor and founder ofwww.cluborlov.blogspot.org with a collaboration of Russian scholars, authors and bloggers including Evgenia Gurevich, Ph.D.(http://thesaker.ru), Scientist Victor Katsap, PhD, Sr. (NuFlare Technology America, Inc), Andrei Kozhev, Serge Lubomudrov and the The Saker (A. Raevsky) titled ‘A Russian Warning’ starts with an introduction of their concerns regarding war against Russia and China by the US-NATO alliance:

We, the undersigned, are Russians living and working in the USA. We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China

The article clearly states what the consequences of such a devastating war would be:

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow. Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender. The Russian leadership enjoys over 80% of popular support; the remaining 20% seems to feel that it is being too soft in opposing Western encroachment. But Russia will retaliate, and a provocation or a simple mistake could trigger a sequence of events that will end with millions of Americans dead and the US in ruins.

Unlike many Americans, who see war as an exciting, victorious foreign adventure, the Russians hate and fear war. But they are also ready for it, and they have been preparing for war for several years now. Their preparations have been most effective. Unlike the US, which squanders untold billions on dubious overpriced arms programs such as the F-35 joint task fighter, the Russians are extremely stingy with their defense rubles, getting as much as 10 times the bang for the buck compared to the bloated US defense industry. While it is true that the Russian economy has suffered from low energy prices, it is far from being in shambles, and a return to growth is expected as early as next year. Senator John McCain once called Russia “A gas station masquerading as a country.” Well, he lied. Yes, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second-largest oil exporter, but it is also world’s largest exporter of grain and nuclear power technology. It is as advanced and sophisticated a society as the United States. Russia’s armed forces, both conventional and nuclear, are now ready to fight, and they are more than a match for the US and NATO, especially if a war erupts anywhere near the Russian border

I agree with their assessment because the U.S. military would lose another war (they have lost several wars throughout their entire history). Not only because their war record signifies their losing streak, the U.S. does not have the strength, the advanced technology they claim they have (as in the case of the failed Air Force F-35 program which was flawed and cost more than a trillion dollars to produce), the moral authority or on the “Right Side” of history to start a war against Russia and China.

For Now, Washington (a bully in its own right) will continue to target smaller, weaker nations with their terrorists who they fund, train and manage in the Middle East and Africa. They will continue to destabilize governments through “regime change” in Latin America as they recently did in Brazil and are in the process of targeting Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia through their Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) or controlled “opposition groups” allied with Washington and Wall Street. The American Empire will continue to rape and pillage the planet’s resources; after all, the American Empire follows the typical patterns of past empires who committed similar crimes against humanity.

As for NATO forces on Russia’s borders, they would be destroyed in less than three days if they were foolish enough to follow Washington’s orders, then again Vassal states have no say in their own foreign or domestic affairs in the first place. NATO is a willing participant waiting for its annihilation as they sacrifice their lives and their nations in a war against Russia not for Europe, but for the American Empire.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Provoking the Russian Bear: NATO Is “Cannon Fodder” for the American Empire

Syria: The U.S. Is Unwilling to Settle – Russia Returns for Another Round

June 6th, 2016 by Moon of Alabama

The Obama administration does not want peace in Syria. The Russians finally have to admit to themselves that the U.S. is no partner for a continuation of a cease fire, a coordinated attack against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and for peace in Syria. Indeed, as Lavrov explains, the U.S. has againasked to spare al-Qaeda from Russian air strikes even as two UN Security Council resolutions demand its eradication. Huge supply convoys (vid) from Turkey are again going to the “rebels” who will, as always, share them with al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

The current renewed Syrian Arab Army attack towards Raqqa is being obstructed not only by sandstorms but also by a timely attack of al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Sham and Turkestan Islamist Party forcesagainst government positions in the south Aleppo countryside.

More than 1,000 militants have begun an offensive against Syrian army positions southwest of Aleppo, the Russian ceasefire monitoring center in Syria said in a statement on Saturday.The center also reported civilians in Aleppo as saying armed groups partly made up of Turkish soldiers had appeared north of the city.

The exactly same scheme happened in March and April when a move towards eastern Syrian by the Syrian army had to be stopped to prevent further losses against al-Qaeda south of Aleppo. It seems obvious that these moves U.S. supported forces are planned to prevent any gains of the Syrian government in the east.

Today Lavrov again talked to Kerry:

“Lavrov expressed concern about attempts to delay the resumption of political negotiations under various pretexts,” the [Russian foreign] ministry said.

As the U.S. is unwilling to settle the Syria conflict Russia will have to retake the initiative.

Is this a trap? Does the U.S. want Russia to sink into a quagmire in Syria? That is certainly a possibility but it is hard to see how this could happen when Russia comes back with a vengeance and strikes hard and fast.

Russian airstrikes against terrorists in Syria have tripled over the last days. Additional resources have been silently dispatched:

Without stirring a buzz similar to that of their first military intervention in Syria, the Russians this week disembarked ground forces and paratroopers in the port of Tartus to support more than 3,000 Russian volunteers dispatched to the region in the past few weeks, in a bid to revive coordination with the Syrian army.
…
Syrian sources stated that the Russian joint command staff, which coordinated aerial support operations last fall, had returned to the Hmeimim military base in Latakia province to begin preparations for new operations.

One can only hope that the Russian leadership has learned its lesson. That it will not stop to pursue the enemy for no political gain when it is again, as it likely will soon be, on the run.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: The U.S. Is Unwilling to Settle – Russia Returns for Another Round

What Did the Death of Bobby Kennedy Mean? Who Was the Second Shooter?

June 6th, 2016 by Jeff Schechtman

And Who Was the Second Shooter?

In commemoration of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination on this day nearly half a century ago, WhoWhatWhy offers a real treat to students of history. In an extensive podcast, Kennedy confidante Paul Schrade, who was also shot that fateful night, talks about his relationship to RFK and reveals insights never heard before. The 91-year-old Schrade begins with a leisurely reminiscence on early labor and political days, of special interest to those with some background in those issues. Starting nine minutes in, he turns to the RFK assassination.

Paul Schrade had known Bobby Kennedy for years. They had worked in the political trenches, helped organize the farmworkers in California and developed a close bond. That night in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel, Schrade was shot in the head and Kennedy was killed. For years Schrade has maintained that Sirhan Sirhan was not the lone shooter. He has devoted himself to proving that assertion.

In this conversation with WhoWhatWhy’s Jeff Schechtman, Schrade, now 91, talks at great length about his relationship with Bobby and what happened that night.

RFK Assassination, Paul Schrade, Sirhan Sirhan

Criminalist and Coroner trace trajectories of bullets (upper left); Sirhan Sirhan in his jail cell, August, 1968 (lower left); Paul Schrade with Robert F. Kennedy (right). Photo credit: California State Archives and MALDEF / YouTube

He tells stories that will certainly add to the historical record of of Bobby Kennedy and his assassination. Listening to Schrade is like sitting back and settling in to look at a long and compelling audio documentary of events from 48 years ago.

After taking us through the events and the subsequent investigation, you can hear the pain and reluctance from Schrade when he talks about how Bobby might have changed the country, had he lived.

Related WhoWhatWhy stories:

Sirhan: A “Manchurian Candidate” in the RFK Assassination?

The Full Story of the Sirhan Sirhan Parole Hearing

The Tortured Logic Behind Sirhan Sirhan’s Parole Denial

Update: Sirhan Denied Parole; RFK Friend Distraught

download rss-35468_640Click HERE to Download Mp3

Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Robert Kennedy (Sven Walnum Photograph Collection / JFK Library)

Full Text Transcript:

Jeff Schechtman: Welcome to radio WhoWhatWhy. I’m Jeff Schechtman.

48 years ago, on June 5, 1968, the world shifted on its axes. The assassination of Bobby Kennedy, after his victory in the California primary, changed politics forever. Unfortunately today few remember those events, what they meant and what Bobby Kennedy might have offered the country. One of those that do remember is our guest today on radio whowhatwhy, Paul Schrade. Paul is now 91 years old. His memories of the details of that night of being shot himself and of his long relationship with Bobby are crystal clear. The problem is he’s not asked enough to tell those stories. During the next 48 minutes, we hope that you’ll stay with us for this unique opportunity to go back in time, to actually go back in history, and listen to Paul Schrade telling stories and sharing with us some of the very special and personal memories. I hope that when you finish listening you’ll all feel that you understand some of the mystery surrounding Robert Kennedy’s death and how he actually might have changed America. It is my pleasure to welcome Paul Schrade to radio whowhatwhy.

Paul Schrade: Thank you, Jeff.

Jeff: It’s great to have you here. First tell us a little bit about your history with Bobby. How did you two get to know each other and a little bit about your involvement in the campaign back in ’68.

Paul: Well, I was a really great fan of the Kennedy brothers. We were supporting Adlai Stevenson ’52/ ’56 and I first met them at a Democratic convention in Chicago. We were coming out of the UAW (United Auto Workers) union reception area. And they walked up to Walter Reuther, the president of our union, and me, and Jack said, “Walter, how can I get your support for the vice presidential nomination?” Bob joined in and Walter said to him, “Young man, you’ve got to change your voting record,” very sternly. And they laughed and left. That was our first contact. And in ’60 I’d been a president of my local union United Auto Workers at North American Aviation and had gone to Detroit to be an assistant to Reuther, and Walter was supporting in ‘60 Jack Kennedy but we had an open endorsement policy. I was campaigning for Stevenson. And, at some point, it became evident that Stevenson was not going to actively campaign but was sort of waiting for the third round as a candidate and be drafted. And I felt that was not a very good idea because Lyndon Johnson was also in the race. So I went to Walter and said, ‘Look, I’m giving up on Stevenson, I don’t think he’s that interested in making a fight for it.’ Walter, the president of my union, he called Bob Kennedy and Bob said: ‘I’ll send  Paul back to California. He can work on the Stevenson delegates of  ’52/’56 and I’ll bring him over to Jack Kennedy.’ I agreed to do that and that’s why I spent a couple weeks ahead of the convention to work with Bob and was very active. We actually shifted a bunch of Stevenson people over to Jack Kennedy. So that was my first working operation. He was just a wonderful guy to work with, very friendly, delightful, very coordinated and effective in working for his brother. A number of things happened at the convention which really cemented my relationship with Bob. The Michigan delegation of the ‘60 convention was off the floor objecting, as most of the labor union leadership, objecting to the Johnson choice for vice president. I worked with Bob and with Walter Reuther, and  was able to get a very liberal statement of Johnson over the Michigan delegation which was off the floor wanting to put up “Soapy” Williams, the governor of Michigan as a candidate against Johnson. When the vice president of our union, Leonard Woodcock, read that statement, you could just feel the pressure go off. And they decided not to oppose Johnson but sort of vote no one. Anyway that was the kind of thing working with Robert Kennedy.  You can see that if you’re effective he would build – we built a relationship.

Jeff: And after the JFK assassination, talk a little bit about your interaction with the Kennedy’s after that.

Paul: Bob was really in bad shape after that. I spent some time with him in Washington at meetings and he would just sit with his hands clenched, sort of bent over in his chair, and just not talk very much. It took about a year before he actually got out of that serious gloom, that suffering over the loss of his brother. The next thing that happened was we began working with the farm workers’ union with Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, back in ’65. There was a senate committee that Bob was on that was going to investigate this and Bob was not scheduled to come out.

So I made a couple of calls. Peter Edelman, who worked for Bob, actually convinced Bob to come to California. He spent two days in ’65 touring, housing, showing how…, understanding how the farm worker housing was just as bad as what he thought of Mississippi. So he really grabbed onto this, and when we had a hearing at the Delano high school, up in San Joaquin Valley farm area, the sheriff and the DA were there, the issue was ‘why are you arresting peaceful pickets?’ He said, “Well, we are being threatened by other workers and other people are coming to kill you. Get away from the picket lines” and so forth. And so Bob said “That’s kind of strange. During lunch break, why don’t you go read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and understand the right to peaceful picketing?” That just brought down the house. Following that, there was a very brief conversation with Cesar and Dolores out front. Bob was not very talkative at some times. So they looked at each other and said a few things.

Then, we would all walk the picket line and I’ve never been on a picket line with a person holding office. Here, the US senator was walking on the farmworkers picket line of the biggest grape vineyard in California, the DiGeorgio Ranch, which was on strike. This was really a wonderful experience and he really picked up on the movement. When he was asked to do anything, he would always respond. He built this relationship to a point where in 1966 or 1968 when he started campaigning in California, he was immediately endorsed by Dolores Huerta and Chavez. That became an important part of the campaign. It was that relationship that I had with him that was carried over to the farm workers’ struggle and it was very important in the election of  ’68.

Jeff:  Talk a little bit about that night, 48 years ago.

Paul: Well, it looked pretty close because there was stand-in for Hubert Humphrey and also Gene McCarthy was on the ballot, but the contest was really between McCarthy and Kennedy. It was very tight. I was doing my job as a union rep at that point, reopening up negotiations with Douglas Aircraft along with president Reuther of my union. So we also flew up north and came back. I actually voted of course early in the morning. We went north for a meeting and came back and I was going home because I thought victory celebrations are not my thing, but word was out on the radio about 8, 9 o’clock that it didn’t look too good for Kennedy. So I decided to go down to the hotel and a friend of mine came and said “Bob heard you were here in the hotel, come on upstairs.”

So we spent the evening just waiting for the count taking phone calls. It was just a wonderful time because the spirits began lifting as it became closer and closer to his victory in California. At one point we decided to go downstairs and Bob and Fred Dutton and Frank Mankiewicz went into the bedroom and went over his notes and decided to go downstairs. On the way down, he said, “Look, I don’t have Dolores Huerta on my notes and I understand that Cesar Chavez can’t be here, would you write it down?” So I did that and ran down the stairs from the fifth floor and caught up with them in the kitchen and went to the embassy ballroom where there was over a thousand people just cheering away–a lot of young people, very mixed group of supporters. It was just a real sensational time for me because I had some problems with Reuther over my endorsement of Robert Kennedy. In fact Lyndon Johnson called Reuther at one point and asked him to get me out of the race after I’d endorsed them. That was before Reuther had made up his mind but he totally refused so it was a real moment of joy for me to be there with him and being thanked by him on the platform as the votes came in for him.

Jeff: And talk a little bit about what happened afterwards.

Paul: Bob was supposed to go off the left side of the platform but it was understood he shouldn’t go back the way he came in–sort of a strategic decision for protection. I went off the left of the platform through the waiter doors into the kitchen and pantry area and waited for him. He came out the back of the stage alone at that point which was really strange because his bodyguards weren’t with him and Ethel wasn’t with him. Ethel was pregnant at that point with Lori. Bob’s bodyguard, Bill Barry, who was his official bodyguard, Rafer Johnson and Rosie Grier were also standing in because these two big guys, they were behind him and Bob said to me, “I want you and Jess with me.” I turned around and saw Jess behind us and waved them on. And Bob then stopped and shook hands with a couple of kitchen workers who I got to know. One was Ron Juan Romero who was the last one to shake hands with Robert Kennedy. Then we moved eastward towards the Colonial Room, which was the end of the pantry area where the media was waiting for him. At that point as we turned and walked eastward, the television lights went on and blinded me. And I started shaking. I didn’t know what happened. I actually felt I was being electrocuted. Bob got shot in the head and at that point went down.

Jeff: When that happened, you were unconscious at the time, correct?

Paul: Yes, I was unconscious at the time and for some time I was in and out of consciousnesses and I was being taken care of. I didn’t know for some time that Bob had been shot and four other people had been shot. But I was being taken care of by a friend of mine from the retail clerks union, who actually saw me and thought I was dead and put one of Kennedy’s campaign hats over my face. But then he felt a heartbeat and took the hat off and put it under my head. Well at that point I knew Bob had been shot and he knew I’d been shot. This timing is pretty important because it’s important to know that I was shot first. Sirhan got off two shots, missed Robert Kennedy and I was right behind him, about 6 feet behind him at that point, missed Robert Kennedy and hit me in the top of my head and then somebody else behind Robert Kennedy shot him. At that time, Bob was heard to say, by a young student organizer for Kennedy named Lidrick…it was reported by UPA, UPI and the FBI didn’t really leave the story for some time because I thought it was a little weird that Bob would be that knowledgeable. But Lidrick said that he heard Robert Kennedy say, “Is everybody okay? Is Paul alright?”

He was aware, at that point, that was confirmed later. I found the FBI statement of Dr. Stanley Abo. Bob must’ve asked him too a few minutes later because Abo said to Bob, “I just checked on Paul. He’s breathing okay. He’s going to be all right.” And Bob closed his eyes. I started being interested in all other things he said. The only thing that I knew he said after that got reported was that when Ethel got to him a few minutes afterwards, because she was pushed down, as the bullets started flying, by Rafer, Rosie, and Bill Barry down on the floor. So when she got to him, he said to her, “Ethel, oh Ethel.” Ethel said to him, “You’re going to be okay Bobby.” And the last thing I knew he said was that as he was being lifted on a gurney, he said “No, don’t lift me, don’t lift me.” That was it. The horrible, horrible night… we never did know for some time whether he is going live through it. But within 24 hours he had died.

Jeff:  The official version of what happened that night has Sirhan Sirhan as the only shooter. At what point did you really begin to think that first of all that wasn’t the whole story, and when did you begin to be active in trying to bring to light other facts about it?

Paul: Well, I accepted everything… I really was torn apart by this. I wasn’t doing my job in the union. I was regional director in the autoworkers union for a hundred thousand workers in the state of California. It was a staff of 30 and people began saying to me, “Paul you got to settle down. You’re angry and you’re depressed.” I finally was defeated and knew I was going to be defeated for office when I was up for reelection in ’72. I just felt that I had to get out of it. And I went back to work in the factory, which was a very quiet and organized place where I could suffer through the rest of this. It was just a terrible, terrible time. Then I kept–during ’71- ’72, I was still active in the antiwar movement and it was one of three co chairing of the biggest rally in California with about 200,000 people in San Francisco.

The important point about that was that I met my wife at a party after that. Monica Weil who became my wife and that was a good decision of going back to work and being married because I have become more settled at that point because it was horrible getting over the loss of Robert Kennedy, what it did to me, but also what it did to the country, to his family and to a lot of other people who were relying on him. So it was a terrible recovery period. In ’74 Allard Lowenstein, who was the head of the Dump Johnson movement, had been a member of Congress, high on the Nixon enemies list. He came to me and Monica here in my home in L.A. and said, “You got a role to play in this. There’s some issues we think that show we don’t know everything about what happened that night.” He took me down to meet that night a couple of people. They were right here in our neighborhood, four, five blocks away. Lillian Castellano  and Floyd Nelson. And they actually began investigating the case back in ’68. Here it was ’74, ‘75 and I didn’t know anything about what they’re doing. Actually what they found was that some friends of theirs had a photograph of what they claim were two bullet holes in the doorframe in the pantry area behind us when we were walking through the pantry.

They tried to get answers from the LAPD and the DA, but they were sent off. They went public with an LA Free Press article and got some attention but not very much. They did get the attention of District Attorney, Evelle Younger, who said that after the trial of Sirhan in 1969, a little over a year after the shooting, that he was going to open up the files, there is lots of information there, we don’t want another Dallas, there’ll be full disclosure. We only found out later in ’88 when we got the files that were locked up actually, we found out that those two people who said they saw those bullet holes in the door frame, they are actually a destruct order within a few weeks of their announcing this publicly. So here again we were supposed to get full disclosure. The files are locked up and they wouldn’t answer any of our questions. That was a really hard road to go. We started that in ’74/’75 with our long stance leading the way, and some really good attorneys, at that point, who were helping us.

Jeff: And where did the investigation go from there, because it seems like there were quite a number of years where it was really dormant.

Paul:  What I was able to do was file a lawsuit as a victim against Sirhan and any others that might be involved. The judge granted us access to the files, but we only got a few photographs, they said, ‘We don’t have the files’ which is a lie. So our next move was to ask the court to set up a panel of experts and re-fired a set for handguns to see if they match the bullets that were in evidence and we were able to get that. CBS network actually came in on the lawsuit. So we had their attorneys and our attorneys working on this very diligently. I had the right to choose one of the experts. And the other parties did too. So we had seven really great experts to go over the evidence and we were astounded by what we found. They re-fired the gun and tried to match up against three bullets that the district attorney and the police department submitted to the court and to this panel.

The three bullets they sent matched each other. One was the Kennedy neck bullet, the only whole bullet extracted from the floor that were shot at Robert Kennedy. And the Weisel bullet, they were able to extract his bullet and one from Ira Goldstein, the other two other victims. Those bullets matched each other but they didn’t match the Sirhan gun. The neck bullet wouldn’t have matched the Sirhan gun anyway because it was fired by the second gunman so this is the dilemma that we faced and we tried to get them to go further with this evidence, but we were blocked by Evelle Younger, who is now the Attorney General for the state, who was this guy who was for open disclosure. Well he filed lawsuits and he filed against our having any further testing. Here we are with this expert panel of seven experts are saying that the bullets don’t match the Sirhan gun. It was a devastating thing because it actually proved there was a second gunman involved. Because of the bullet 47, if it matched the other bullets, then there was something happening. Our theory which is pretty well founded on fact is that they substituted bullets from outside the guns, a gun they took out of a storage in order to have bullets all coming from the same gun to cover up the Kennedy neck bullet, which came from the second gun. Here we were with all this information, and the DA at the time and the Attorney General were opposed to anything further and the judge closed down the case. Then there was this long period when we couldn’t get into the files. We began fighting for the files. We went to the grand jury in ’72. The grand jury wouldn’t hear us, even though we had a right to be heard on the evidence that we had. We also went to the district attorney with 5000 documents and all the evidence of the second gunman. Anyway, it wasn’t until 2008 that we’re able to get any further information going. That was the result of Brad Johnson, a senior writer, now retired from CNN. He found an audiotape in the files. It shows that the files we actually got the files in 1988. They went into the California State archives of…

A major list came out saying ‘this evidence has been destroyed or is missing’, which really again, complicated the case. Brad Johnson’s discovery that there is an audiotape in the files had a label on it saying “May be gunshots”. About 200 audiotapes, but many of them have been destroyed. There are only 200 left. But out of the 200, there’s only one that had any kind of audio evidence because the media people or anyone covering the walk to the media concert had their tape recorder shut off. And this one guy, a Polish journalist named Pruszynski hadn’t turned it off. And that was the tape that Brad Johnson found. He turned it over to a really great forensic expert, Philip Van Praag who at that point had 40 years in forensics and audiotape working for a lot of the big corporations. And he was able to find 13 shots on the tape and two double shots which meant that the gun expert and firing a gun similar to Sirhan’s could not fire it fast enough…  The two double shots show there were actually two guns firing and not only fired from Mr. Sirhan’s gun.

So here we had this new evidence and we took it to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. They joined us in asking for the reopening of the case. We began moving again to the district attorney here and also to the chief of police. They wouldn’t answer us. We gave them the full files and a book on the case written by Van Praag and his co-author [Robert Jowling?] who’s been a judge and lawyer and taught forensics in Arizona college. These two experts put all this evidence together, all the files together in a 500-page book and published hundreds just for lawyers and experts. So at this point we’re able to advance the case, but again, going to the DA, going to the chief of police, going to the US attorney, going to Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, a friend of the family with a letter from Bobby Kennedy supporting a new investigation. We never heard from him. They just closed the door on us. They wouldn’t answer. Now our understanding of that is they know what we know that there was a second gunman. That the evidence shows there was a second gunman and they’re just not ready to expose that to the public. Because they know we know! We know that there is evidence that there is a second gunman. That it is so clear and concise that any person, even a rookie police officer, would know there was a second gunman firing that night.

Jeff:  It’s easy to see why the district attorney in Los Angeles and the LAPD has resisted the reopening of this. I mean they would know there was clearly a rush to judgment on their part. They’re looking to protect their interest. Why do you think there has been such resistance with respect to the Justice Department?

Paul: First of all, we’re finally told by the US attorney it’s not a federal case. That wasn’t a position that the Attorney General Holder gave us. He just didn’t answer us but [Andre Barat?] the US attorney for our section of California, he did one good thing: he facilitated a retest of the gun by the FBI. We got Van Praag to give his scholarly paper on the evidence of the second gun. The two guns and 13 shots. That went to the FBI lab so he was cooperating that way. But the lab came back and said they couldn’t even find eight shots of Sirhan on the tape. Then we found out that the Washington Post and certain forensic societies have been really seriously critical of the FBI. A lot of falsified forensics on a lot of gunshot cases and here we are dealing with a false FBI lab and getting a report back saying they can’t even find eight shots and also saying that Van Praag cleared this with his fellow scientists. You know that that system, you have new evidence, a new discovery, you got to do peer review.

Here we have this information and they could have used it. I actually agreed to send Van Praag to the FBI lab but that was ignored. Anyway here we are, now it’s a local case. The US Attorney and the Attorney General couldn’t have done anything with it. Although they could have recommended the locals to go with us. So it’s really a state and local case and that’s where we are at the present time. Sirhan does have a case going. Two really great lawyers, William Pepper and Lori Dusek, who are operating on the basis that Sirhan was programmed and that’s been proven with a scientist from Harvard Medical School who has shown that Sirhan was easily manipulated through hypnosis and probably was programmed.

Well, I don’t go there with that. What I’m doing is going on the physical evidence and actually going after the prosecutors indicting them for falsifying evidence, for destroying evidence, and ignoring the fact that Sirhan was actually a captive after the two shots and in no way could have shot Robert Kennedy with two shots at Kennedy, one hit me, Ms. Kennedy. He was then captured and thrown up against the steam table facedown with his gun-hand being pounded on the steam table so his gun was firing away from Kennedy westward and Kennedy was eastward. That was at the point as he started firing a gun, six more shots, according to the audiotape. The second gunman, at the same time they were firing in unison six westward by Sirhan and four eastward into Robert’s head by the second gunman. So we get over that hurdle of trying to get peer review of the audiotape testing by Van Praag, where he proves 13 shots of two guns and two different guns shooting in opposite directions.

We can now prove that the fact that Sirhan fired those two shots, missed, and then, with his hand being pounded on the steam table, shot four other people with five shots. So here are two shots that he got off at me and Robert Kennedy. Five more shots wounding four people and one shot going through one of the guys’ hands. Here’s proof of seven shots being fired by Sirhan out of an eight-shot revolver with no chance to load it even if he had extra bullets in his pocket. Here we can prove that those bullets could not have gone into Robert Kennedy. He was firing in a different direction at that point. And the second gunman was firing eastward rather than westward. So here we had the physical evidence that really confirms Van Praag’s scientific evidence that he created and analyzing that audiotape. So we’re in a hell of a good position at this point to prove the second gun. Two ways. One by the firing of the gun of Sirhan, two, one missing Kennedy, two missing Kennedy, one hitting me. And the six other shots  being taken care of. There is no possible way for Sirhan to fire those four shots. First of all, he’s out of position and he’s out of bullets! And it’s that kind of physical evidence now that we have, that proves that Van Praag’s scientific stuff that they said why you don’t have to peer review, the asinine position taken by the FBI, by the DA, and by the police chief here.

Jeff: It’s important to point out that over the years Sirhan’s position has been that he remembers none of it.

Paul: I really believe him and he understands that and he said this, “If I will confess to this and I was able to remember enough, I would’ve been out of prison a long time ago.” He would’ve been up for parole in 1974 and then if he had been behaving himself  ’69 to ’74, he would have been out of jail by now. So he is in a terrible position to say that “I don’t remember” and believing it and not being able to get out of prison. If he actually is out there and said “Yes I did it. I know I was doing it. I was doing this for this reason and that,” and made a total confession, he would be out of prison by now. So his memory problem is a serious one. I think in a way that substantiates that he knows he could have confessed something earlier to clear the record. Even though that would be lying on his own terms, he would be out of prison.

Jeff: If in fact the case would be reopened, if in fact the investigation would be reopened, and there was a conclusion on the part of all of the law enforcement authorities, from the Justice Department to the LAPD and an agreement that there was a second gun, where does that leave things?

Paul: That’s where we are at this point. We know there was a second gun. They won’t investigate. They refuse to investigate and they’ve refused to investigate for nearly 50 years, 48 years. They’ll continue to do that. How we get them to come to even this, to recognize they have a responsibility to this is a very difficult thing to do, because they know what we’re saying is correct, because we’re on the record. We’ve got a book on it. We submitted files to several district attorneys, to this district attorney, Jackie Lacey. To this chief of police, Chief Beck, Charlie Beck. They know the case and they know there was a second gunman. But they are not willing to admit this and put their whole apparatus in some sort of jeopardy. I don’t know why truth jeopardizes them, it certainly jeopardizes their integrity as peace officers.

Jeff: How do you think this will play out at this point?

Paul: Well, my first step was to acknowledge what we know about Sirhan, that he didn’t do it and couldn’t have done it and that was covered up completely by the investigation. That’s why I went down to visit him because I’ve been working with his lawyers, although I don’t collaborate with them, technically, because they have a different strategy and a different case than I do. My case is that the prosecutors actually framed Sirhan and covered up the evidence that he didn’t do it and covered up the evidence of the second gunman. They accused Sirhan.[?] Well, I’m accusing them of actually not doing their job and knowing it. So we’re running on parallel courses. One reason I went down to say to Sirhan mainly, “You did not do it. Even though you believe you did it and you are convicted for doing it and don’t remember doing it. You actually did not do it and I know that. The evidence shows that clearly and it’s conclusive. I wanted him to know that somebody was working on the case. I said to him, “I forgive you for shooting me. You didn’t know who I was. I was an innocent bystander. You were there shooting at Robert Kennedy and missed.

You shot me and then you were captured. You were not able to shoot Robert Kennedy. I want to make it clear to him that there might be some hope in this, that we can get him out of prison. Knowing Robert Kennedy and knowing him well, Robert Kennedy would be appalled at what they’re doing to this guy. They’re harassing him. They’re holding these parole board hearings and going over this case. So he’s in there, he’s up on good behavior. But they refuse to recognize that there’s evidence that he didn’t do it. So that’s what made me so angry at that meeting. I know I was out of control when I was there, but this year I found out that I had victim rights to go to the parole board. That was the first time I ever knew this.

So I applied and I was instructed to say anything I wanted and take as much time as I wanted.  I would be the last one of the parole board hearing. But after listening for a couple of hours to the parole board people, going over his record, talking about, and asking where he could go if he were released. “Yes, I could go back to Jordan, I have some family there. I’m still a citizen of Jordan. Yes I could go back to Pasadena. My brothers are living in our family home and they would take care of me.” In a way, sort of tantalizing him with this. I just felt really awful for him that they were doing this all because they were not going to release him. Then, the assistant district attorney-retired, who handles the parole boards for the district attorney just went after him viciously based on really false evidence that I knew was wrong and I contended with him as he was doing this.

Fortunately, there was an AP reporter and he was watching all of this as I, who was sitting next to him. He could see how agitated I was when I had a chance to speak out. When I started talking to Sirhan, who was across the table about eight feet away from me, the chairman of the parole board said to me, “Mr. Schrade, you cannot talk to him directly.” I said, “Look, I’m here. I know my victim rights. That’s why I’m here! I want to tell him that he didn’t shoot Robert Kennedy. I was going to do that and just sent them off. But I was stopped a number of times when I have a prepared statement and I tried to read it and did it pretty well but I got through it. Towards the end of the day, they took a recess and came back and said to us, ” Well, we’ll have another hearing in five years.” You know, it’s so horrible. Sirhan, as I was talking, would nod occasionally and was listening very intently. But as he moved away from his position on the other end of the table, he was going to come fairly close to me and he was smiling for the first time and reached out his hand and I was approaching him to shake his hand, they wouldn’t allow that. They just yanked him, the guards yanked him and put him back to his cell.

Jeff: Is it your sense, Paul, that the cover-up, the refusal to reopen the investigation, is covering up on the part of the LAPD in the LA district attorney’s office, covering up previous incompetence, or is there something more behind it?

Paul: Well, there were two cases the year before. In ’67 there was this Jack Kirschke case  which every once in a while we will get a little blip on the screen on that. Back in ’74 and ’75 because Chief Davis told me that’s the Kirschke case but I didn’t pick up on that. What I found out recently the Kirschke case was a deputy district attorney of Evelle Younger, who shot his wife and her lover in their bed, and then tried to cover up with an alibi. So Evelle Younger had this case going and it went on appeal. The guy, who was convicted, wasn’t jailed and it went on appeal. So here, Evelle Younger had this sort of scandalous thing happening in his own operation.

When the appeals court came down in 1975, at the time we first got involved, they really attack Younger and his criminalist for perjurious conduct and showing a number of ways they actually tried to fix this case to make this guy look innocent. I can’t go into details regarding all the things they did in the Kirschke case but there is a parallel situation in the Robert Kennedy case, where they did exactly the same thing, got away with it by falsifying evidence and producing all sides of evidence to the jury. The California Appeals Court actually attacked the criminalist and Younger for their behavior. And that is repeated over the Robert Kennedy case. It becomes a very political thing, particularly for Evelle Younger who was running for attorney general during the Robert Kennedy Sirhan case and had this Kirschke case in his background as well. I think there was a lot of politics involved in this, mainly based upon what Evelle Younger’s ambitions were at that point and why he’s trying to cover up what he did.  He covered up the second gunman and he covered up the fact that Sirhan was a captive after two shots and was unable to shoot Robert Kennedy. And they knew that.

Jeff: Paul, when you look at our politics today, what do you think Robert Kennedy would think of where we are today?

Paul: Haha, how funny. Robert Kennedy would have an answer like that. Such a good person and he developed very rapidly, you know. He became the best political person I’d ever known and really deep into problems people were facing: poor people, people of color, of different origins and so forth. He was really a great human being. That you could see developing, right from 1956 when I first met him until ‘68. He would be appalled at what is happening now. And I think the other speculation is, if he had lived, would we be the same as we are now, with terrible politics, the Republican Party, and this horrible person, Donald Trump, running for president. Again you’re trying to predict back [on from all this] [     ???].

Jeff: Paul Schrade, I thank you so much for spending time with us.

Paul: Okay.

Jeff: I appreciate it. Thank you for being with us. And thank you for listening and joining us here in radio whowhatwhy. I hope you’ll join us next week for another radiowhowhatwhy podcast. I’m Jeff Schechtman.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Did the Death of Bobby Kennedy Mean? Who Was the Second Shooter?

Did Clinton’s Emails Expose CIA Agents?

June 6th, 2016 by Peter Van Buren

Even as Hillary Clinton closes in on the Democratic nomination, facts continue to emerge indicating that her sloppy email practices may have endangered secrets, including the identities of covert operatives, writes Peter Van Buren.

These are facts. You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.

From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 by exposing the names of CIA officials.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific reason for exclusion.

But don’t believe me. Instead, look at page two of this State Department document which lists the exemptions.

Note specifically the different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG.” As common sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would — literally — be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual’s job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Yet Hillary’s emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term “(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG” Click on the links and see for yourself: CIA One; CIA Two; CIA Three

There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees (“B3 NSA”); see page 23 inside this longer PDF document.

Why It Matters

— These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a “mistake” or minor rule-breaking.

— These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act’s standard of mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence” may have been met by Clinton.

— There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. It is one of the most basic tenets taught and exercised inside the government. One protects one’s colleagues.

— Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA. It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security.

— These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton’s part for the security process.

BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names. Read the story of John Kiriakou. A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They’re treated in the media as almost gossip.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His second book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent. Next up is a novel about WWII Japan, Hooper’s War.

He writes about current events at www.wemeantwell.comand on Twitter @wemeantwell.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Did Clinton’s Emails Expose CIA Agents?

Washington Asked Moscow to Stop Attacking al Nusra Terrorists, [aka Moderate al Qaeda] in Syria

June 6th, 2016 by Press TV

The United States has asked Russia to stop conducting airstrikes against the al-Nusra Front terrorists in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says.

Fear of hitting the US-backed militants fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government prompted the American officials to make the request, Lavrov said in a televised speech on Friday.

“They are telling us not to hit it (al-Nusra), because there is ‘normal’ opposition next … to it,” Lavrov said. “But that opposition must leave terrorists’ positions, we long have agreed on that.”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia answers journalists' questions on May 25, 2016. (AFP photo)

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia answers journalists’ questions on May 25, 2016. (AFP photo)

The foreign minister noted that Russia and the US were closely discussing ways to secure a truce in Syria, adding that fighting the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group and al-Nusra should be a top priority.

Despite a US-Russia mediated “cessation of hostilities” in Syria that began on February 27, fighting has continued to rage in the conflict-ridden parts of the country, particularly around the city of Aleppo.

The Syrian government accepted the truce on condition that military efforts against Daesh and al-Nusra, as well as other UN-designated terror groups which are not included in the agreement, continue.

Russia first set a deadline for the US-backed militants to pull out from areas occupied by al-Nusra, but then agreed to give them more time to withdraw.

Since March, al-Nusra Front has recruited 3,000 new militants, including teenagers, in comparison to an average of 200 to 300 a month before, the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has announced according to the AP.

Other sources say hundreds living in camps for displaced people in the northern parts near Turkey have joined the terrorist al-Qaeda branch.

Al-Nusra and other Takfiri terrorists hold most of the northwestern province of Idlib and parts of neighboring Aleppo province.

Last year the Pentagon launched a $500 million “train-and-equip” program to train and arm some 5,400 militants a year as a proxy ground force in Syria, but it yielded only a small cadre of under 200 militants before it was officially pulled.

Those forces are now allegedly being targeted by Russian airstrikes in the Arab country, which began September last year upon a request from Damascus.

Syria has been gripped by a foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. According to United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, over 400,000 people have been killed in the conflict.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Asked Moscow to Stop Attacking al Nusra Terrorists, [aka Moderate al Qaeda] in Syria

Police Investigated Brussels Metro Bomber Ahead of Paris Attacks

June 6th, 2016 by nsnbc international

Khalid El Bakraoui, the alleged suicide bomber who blew himself up on the Brussels metro on March 22, was detained and questioned by police prior to the Paris attacks. He was released again due to lack of evidence. Police has not explained how El Bakraoui, whose phone was monitored, could stay undetected in the period between the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks.

Khalid El Bakraoui lived in the Laaken district of the Belgian capital Brussels. On October 15, 2015, three weeks ahead of the so-called Paris attacks, police ransacked his apartment and detained him. Police arrived at the flat about 7 a.m. in the morning.

Police detained Khalid El Bakraoui for questioning. His computer allegedly contained “photos of terrorists” as well as “calls for an armed struggle against the west”. Police notes that he at this point “isn’t flagged as a radical” and is released.

Police claims that its units concerned with counter-terrorism, at this time, were to busy to allow them to investigate the matter further. Police allegedly only suspected Khalid El Bakraoui of arms trafficking.

The question how and why police would not consider a person under suspicion of arms trafficking, whose computer allegedly contained calls for armed struggle against the west as a potential terrorist has never really been answered.

Police had tapped El Bakraoui’s phone but imply that he used code during phone conversations; thus not substantiating any eventual suspicions for involvement in terrorism. El Bakraoui was allegedly released because of insufficient evidence.

His estranged wife reportedly wrote a letter to him, asking where he was and what he was doing, and why he was hiding everything from him. The couple was reportedly about to divorce. On March 22, Khalid El Bakraoui reportedly killed himself in a suicide bombing in the Brussels metro.

He reportedly rented the house at the address Rue du Fort 29, Ville de Charlern, that was used by the Paris attackers, using a false name. Police reportedly recognized his photo on the rent agreement and tried, unsuccessfully, to track him down. Police did not clarify how they could fail to pinpoint the position of the person whose telephone they were monitoring.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Police Investigated Brussels Metro Bomber Ahead of Paris Attacks

Hillary Clinton: Electing a “Foreign Spy” for President?

June 6th, 2016 by Prof. James Petras

During her 4 years as Secretary of State of the United States (2009-2014), Hillary Clinton controlled US foreign policy.  She had access to the most confidential information and state documents, numbering in the tens of thousands, from all of the major government departments and agencies, Intelligence, FBI, the Pentagon, Treasury and the office of the President. 

She had unfettered access to vital and secret information affecting US policy in all the key regions of the empire.

Today, Mme. Clinton’s critics have focused on the technical aspects of her violations of State Department procedures and guidelines regarding handling of official correspondences and her outright lies on the use of her own private e-mail server for official state business, including the handling of highly classified material in violation of Federal Records laws, as well as her hiding official documents from the Freedom of Information Act and concocting her own system exempt from the official oversight which all other government officials accept.

Prof. James Petras, image right.

For many analysts, therefore, the issue is procedural, moral and ethical.  Mme. Clinton had placed herself above and beyond the norms of State Department discipline.  This evidence of her arrogance, dishonesty and blatant disregard for rules should disqualify her from becoming the President of the United States.  While revelations of Clinton’s misuse of official documents, her private system of communication and correspondence and the shredding of tens of thousands of her official interchanges, including top secret documents, are important issues to investigate, these do not address the paramount political question:  On whose behalf was Secretary Clinton carrying out the business of US foreign policy, out of the review of government oversight?

The Political Meaning and Motivation of Clinton’s High Crimes Against the State

Secretary Clinton’s private, illegal handling of official US documents has aroused a major FBI investigation into the nature of her activities.  This is separate from the investigation by the Office of the Inspector General and implies national security violations.

There are several lines of inquiry against Mme. Clinton:

(1)  Did she work with, as yet unnamed, foreign governments and intelligence services to strengthen their positions and against the interest of the United States?

(2)  Did she provide information on the operations and policy positions of various key US policymakers to competitors, adversaries or allies undermining the activities of military, intelligence and State Department officials?

(3)  Did she seek to enhance her personal power within the US administration to push her aggressive policy of serial pre-emptive wars over and against veteran State Department and Pentagon officials who favored traditional diplomacy and less violent confrontation?

(4)  Did she prepare a ‘covert team’, using foreign or dual national operative, to lay the groundwork for her bid for the presidency and her ultimate goal of supreme military and political power?

Contextualizing Clinton’s Clandestine Operations

There is no doubt that Mme. Clinton exchanged minor as well as major official documents and letters via her private e-mail system.  Personal, family and even intimate communications may have been carried on the same server.  But the key issue is that a large volume of highly confidential government information flowed to Clinton via an unsecured private ‘back channel’ allowing her to conduct state business secretly with her correspondents.

Just who were Secretary Clinton’s most enduring, persistent and influential correspondents?  What types of exchanges were going on, which required avoiding normal oversight and a wanton disregard for security?

Clinton’s covert war policies, which included the violent overthrow of the elected Ukraine government, were carried out by her ‘Lieutenant’ Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a virulent neo-conservative holdover from the previous Bush Administration and someone committed to provoking Russia and to enhancing Israel’s power in the Middle East.  Clinton’s highly dangerous and economically destabilizing ‘brainchild’ of militarily encircling China, the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’, would have required clandestine exchanges with elements in the Pentagon – out of the State Department and possibly Executive oversight.

In other words, within the Washington political circuit, Secretary Clinton’s escalation of nuclear war policies toward Russia and China required secretive correspondences which would not necessarily abide with the policies and intelligence estimates of other US government agencies and with private business interests.

Clinton was deeply engaged in private exchanges with several unsavory overseas political regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Honduras and Turkey involving covert violent and illegal activities.  She worked with the grotesquely corrupt opposition parties in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil

Clinton’s correspondence with the Honduran armed forces and brutal oligarchs led to the military coup against the elected President Zelaya, its violent aftermath and the phony election of a pliable puppet.  Given the government-death squad campaign against Honduran civil society activists, Clinton would certainly want to cover up her direct role in organizing the coup.  Likewise, Mme. Clinton would have destroyed her communications with Turkish President Erdogan’s intelligence operations in support of Islamist terrorist-mercenaries in Syria and Iraq.

Secretary Clinton’s e-mail would have shown her commitment to the Saudis when they brutally invaded Bahrain and Yemen to suppress independent civil society organizations and regional political rivals.

But it is Clinton’s long-term, large-scale commitment to Israel that goes far beyond her public speeches of loyalty and fealty to the Jewish state.  Hillary Clinton’s entire political career has been intimately dependent on Zionist money, Zionist mass media propaganda and Zionist Democratic Party operations.

In exchange for Clinton’s dependence on political support from the Zionist power configuration in the US, she would have become the major conduit of confidential information from the US to Israel and the transmission belt promoting Israel-centric policies within the US government.

The entire complex of Clinton-Israel linkages and correspondences has compromised the US intelligence services, the State Department and Pentagon.

Secretary Clinton went to extraordinary lengths to serve Israel, even undermining the interests of the United States.   It is bizarre that she would resort to such a crude measure, setting up a private e-mail server to conduct state business.  She blithely ignored official State Department policy and oversight and forwarded over 1,300 confidential documents and 22 highly sensitive top-secret documents related to the ‘Special Access Program’.  She detailed US military and intelligence documents on US strategic policies on Syria, Iraq, Palestine and other vital regimes.  The Inspector General’s report indicates that ‘she was warned’ about her practice.  It is only because of the unusual stranglehold Tel Aviv and Israel’s US Fifth Column have over the US government and judiciary that her actions have not been prosecuted as high treason.  It is the height of hypocrisy that government whistleblowers have been persecuted and jailed by the Obama Administration for raising concerns within the Inspector General system of oversight, while Secretary Clinton is on her way to the Presidency of the United States!

Conclusion

Many of Clinton’s leading critics, among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth that Hillary’s main offence is her ‘carelessness’ in handling official documents and her deliberate deceptions and lies to the government.

These critics have trivialized, personalized and moralized what is really deliberate, highly politicized state behavior.  Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not ‘careless in managing an insecure mail server’.  If Clinton was engaged in political liaison with foreign officials she deliberately used a private email server to avoid political detection by security elements within the US government.  She lied to the US government on the use and destruction of official state documents because the documents were political exchanges between a traitor and its host.

The 22 top secret reports on ‘Special Access Programs’ which Clinton handled via her private computer provided foreign governments with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for counter-responses inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program damages and possibly lost lives.

The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the surface misdeeds.  The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has gone a step further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous obstacles from Hillary’s domestic allies in pursuing a criminal investigation.  The FBI, whose director is a political appointee,  has suffered a series of defeats in its attempts to investigate and prosecute spying to Israel, including the AIPAC espionage case of Rosen and Weismann and in their long held opposition to the release of the notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard.  The power of the Zionists within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli spies captured in the US right after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Clinton’s choice of conducting secret private communications, despite  several years of State Department warnings to abide by their strict security regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base, and not a mere reflection of her personal hubris or individual arrogance.

Clinton has circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than Jonathan Pollard.

President Obama and other top Cabinet officials share her political alliances, but they operate through ‘legitimate’ channels and without compromising personnel, missions, funding or programs.

The executive leadership now faces the problem of how to deal with a traitor, who may be the Democratic Party nominee for US President, without undermining the US quest for global power. How do the executive leadership and intelligence agencies back a foreign spy for president, who has been deeply compromised and can be blackmailed?  This may explain why the FBI, NSA, and CIA hesitate to press charges; hesitate to even seriously investigate, despite the obvious nature of her offenses.  Most of all it explains why there is no indication of the identity of Secretary Clinton’s correspondents in the various reports so far available.

            As Sherlock Holmes would say, “We are entering in deep waters, Watson”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton: Electing a “Foreign Spy” for President?

Plan Condor: Justicia Argentina se Pronuncia

June 5th, 2016 by Prof Nicolas Boeglin

Henry Kissinger con Jorge Videla. Imagen extraída extraída de  artículo  sobre el Plan Cóndor

Una histórica sentencia se leyó el pasado viernes 27 de mayo en Argentina, al condenarse por vez primera en la historia a los responsables nacionales de la Operación Cóndor: la demanda fue presentada en 1999 después de varios años en los que se documentó en toda la región esta acción coordinada  a partir de 1975 por los aparatos militares de seis Estados de América Latina.

El pasado viernes 27 de mayo del 2016, la justicia de Argentina dictaminó su decisión con relación a una causa promovida por las víctimas y familiares de víctimas del denominado “Plan Cóndor“. Es la primera vez en la historia que los responsables nacionales de la “Operación Cóndor” reciben una condena en América Latina. La sentencia fue leída a partir de las 15:30, hora en Argentina y pudo seguirse la transmisión en vivo en  este enlace . Varias sedes diplomáticas de Argentina ofrecieron la transmisión en vivo desde una pantalla gigante (fue por ejemplo, el caso de la legación diplomática de Argentina en Asunción así como de  todas las embajadas de Argentina  en los demás Estados miembros del MERCOSUR).

En esta  nota  publicada pocos minutos después de leída la sentencia por el periódico Clarín, se precisan las penas dictaminadas por los tres jueces:” A continuación, el listado completo de condenados y las penas impuestas: 1-Santiago Omar Riveros: 25 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 2-Miguel Angel Furci: 25 años de prisión e inhabilitación absoluta y perpetua. 3-Reynaldo Benito Bignone: 20 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 4-Eduardo Samuel De Lío: 12 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 5-Humberto José Román Lobaiza: 18 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 6-Enrique Braulio Olea: 13 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 7-Luis Sadi Pepa: 12 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 8-Rodolfo Emilio Feroglio: 20 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 9-Carlos Caggiano Tedesco: 12 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 10-Antonio Vañek: 13 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 11-Eugenio Guañabens Perelló: 13 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 12-Felipe Jorge Alespeiti: 12 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 13-Manuel Cordero Piacentini: 25 años de prisión. 14-Néstor Horacio Falcón: 12 años de prisión e inhabilitación especial para ejercer cargos públicos por el doble de tiempo de la condena. 15-Federico Antonio Minicucci: ocho años de prisión. Juan Avelino Rodríguez y Carlos Tragant fueron absueltos“.

Uno de los acusados, Santiago Omar Riveros, cuenta con 92 años de edad. En la precitada nota de periódico Clarín, se indica que “Los jueces Adrián Federico Grünberg, Oscar Ricardo Amirante y Pablo Gustavo Laufer y el juez sustituto Ricardo Angel Basílico comenzaron en 2003 este juicio oral donde había 32 acusados, de los cuales solo 17 llegaron vivos al momento de la lectura del veredicto“.

Como bien se sabe, el “Plan Cóndor” inició con un acuerdo suscrito en 1975 entre los cuerpos de inteligencia de seis Estados (Argentina, Bolivia Brasil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay). Con la ayuda de los servicios de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, su objetivo consistió en coordinar los esfuerzos en la denominada “lucha contra la subversión” (ver nota de prensa).

La demanda ante la justicia argentina

La demanda de los familiares de las víctimas fue interpuesta inicialmente en Buenos Aires en 1999 y no fue sino en el 2013 que fueron convocadas las primeras audiencias ante jueces argentinos.

En este  documento oficial  de una reunión celebrada entre altos funcionarios de Estados Unidos y de Argentina el 10 de junio de 1976, se puede leer que para el representante de Estados Unidos, Henry Kissinger: “If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. But you should get back quickly to normal procedures“.
La ONG argentina CELS, fundada por Emilio Mignone (1922-1998), fue la entidad que inició la recopilación de testimonios durante más de 15 años en distintos lugares, y la que presentó, con otras entidades, varias demandas ante los juzgados argentinos. Actualmente, dos son las demandas en trámite ante la justicia en su fase final: una relacionada con el “Plan Condor” y otra, denominada “Automotores Orletti” (ver detalles de cada una en las conclusiones de reciente seminario auspiciado en el 2015 en Oxford por la Open Society y la British Academy, entre otras entidades). En el caso de la primera causa, cuya sentencia fue parcialmente leída en Buenos Aires (la parte resolutiva únicamente), de las 106 víctimas, 45 son uruguayas, 22 son chilenas, 15 paraguayas, 13 bolivianas, 10 argentinas y una es de nacionalidad ecuatoriana. La Secretaría de Derechos Humanos, órgano del Estado argentino, también figura entre las entidades que apoyan las reivindicaciones de las víctimas.

La soledad de la justicia argentina en la región

Desde la perspectiva de los diversos logros obtenidos en materia de derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, esta decisión leída el pasado 27 de mayo representa un sustantivo avance en la lucha contra la impunidad por crímenes del pasado en América Latina. Una lucha en la que pareciera que la justicia argentina cuenta con herramientas legales mucho más efectivas y con jueces mucho más determinados que las de otros Estados afectados por esta misma operación regional. La resistencia de las estructuras judiciales no se limita a las de los Estados del Cono Sur: en febrero pasado tuvimos la oportunidad de analizar el caso de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá, fusilado en 1939 en España por las fuerzas franquistas. La exhumación realizada en enero del 2016 de su cuerpo ubicado en una fosa común en España se debió a una solicitud realizada por una jueza desde… Argentina (ver nuestra breve  nota  titulada: “JusticiA con A de Ascensión: a propósito de la exhumación de una fosa española a solicitud de una jueza de Argentina“).

 

Imagen extraída de nota del CELS sobre el centro de detención clandestino El Vesubio

Se lee en el sitio del CELS que: “El Plan Cóndor fue un sistema formal de coordinación represiva entre los países del Cono Sur que funcionó desde mediados de la década del setenta hasta iniciados los años ochenta para perseguir y eliminar a militantes políticos, sociales, sindicales y estudiantiles de nacionalidad argentina, uruguaya, chilena, paraguaya, boliviana y brasileña. Su acta de fundación está fechada el 28 de noviembre de 1975 en Santiago de Chile, durante la clausura de la Primera Reunión de Inteligencia Nacional, y lleva las firmas de los representantes de Inteligencia de la Argentina (Jorge Casas, capitán de navío, SIDE), Bolivia (Carlos Mena, mayor del Ejército), Chile (Manuel Contreras Sepúlveda, jefe de la DINA), Uruguay (José Fons, coronel del Ejército) y Paraguay (Benito Guanes Serrano, coronel del Ejército)“.
Los “archivos del terror” y los documentos secretos desclasificados en Estados Unidos

Para documentar las acciones cometidas de manera coordinada por los aparatos de inteligencia, se procedió a establecer un Proyecto de Documentación del Plan Cóndor, un archivo que incluye una gran cantidad de documentos desclasificados de los servicios de inteligencia, y que fueron presentados a los jueces argentinos hace unos años. Las entidades públicas en materia de derechos humanos del Cono Sur por su parte también procedieron a organizar, a sistematizar y a poner en línea un fondo documental de archivos sobre el Plan Cóndor (ver sitio). En el 2009, la UNESCO, a solicitud de Paraguay, declaró patrimonio documental de la humanidad la gran cantidad de documentos encontrados (700.000 folios) en el cuarto de una casa en la localidad de Lambaré en Paraguay, en su mayoría relativas al Plan Cóndor, así como a la represión política en los 80 en Paraguay. Este inédito hallazgo se debió a un juez paraguayo, quién actuó a solicitud de una incansable víctima de la represión paraguaya en los años 80, Martin Almada: un educador torturado por personas con distintos acentos del Cono Sur en los años 80 y quién demostró al mundo cuán persistente se debe de ser cuando de lucha contra la impunidad se trata. El 22 de diciembre de 1992, los denominados “Archivos del Terror” vieron la luz del día: “no quiero ser desagradable” debió externar el juez ante la resistencia del oficial a cargo de mantener bajo custodia de estos documentos (ver video en Youtube de esta memorable jornada vivida en Paraguay). EL candado que mantenía clausurada la puerta debió ser destruido  con lijas y martillos, y se mantiene la interrogante sobre la identidad exacta de quién (es) poseían su llave.  En las declaraciones de Martin Almada, en este  reportaje  de ABC Color del año 2012, al celebrarse 20 años desde este importante hallazgo, se lee que: “Ya caída la dictadura, se cambia la Constitución en 1992 y surge la figura del hábeas data, que fue aprovechada por Almada para solicitar ante el juez José Agustín Fernández el allanamiento del archivo de la Policía. Mientras aún se tramitaba su pedido, el profesional fue contactado por una mujer que le aseguró que los papeles que buscaba no estaban en la capital, sino en un depósito fuera de la ciudad. “Me dio un plano y me dice esta mujer que este mismo plano ya le había dado al entonces diputado Pancho de Vargas y que no le hizo caso”, recuerda”.

En la declaratoria para la nominación por parte de la UNESCO de los “Archivos del Terror” como patrimonio documental de la humanidad (ver  texto completo ), se indica el cuido extremo con el que las entidades de la sociedad civil y las autoridades paraguayas reunieron, clasificaron y pusieron a disposición del público estos documentos: “The classification process of the Archives started in early 1993. The Supreme Court of Justice and the District Attorney’s Office of the State instructed the officers to collaborate with the professional staff specialized in documentations. These specialists were provided by two non-governmental organizations, the Center of Documentation and Studies (CDE) and the Churches Committee for Emergency Assistance (CIPAE). These two NGO’s also represented victims and victims´ families of the dictatorship. In March of 1993, the Supreme Court of Justice created the Center of Documentation and Archives for the Defense of Human Rights (CDyA), which is located in the Palace of Justice. This Center is open to public and researchers. The Center now has microfilm and a digitized system in order to protect the documents. These improvements were made possible by their own resources and with the important cooperation of national and international organizations, universities and other public and private institutions“.

Foto de la ficha encontrada en los “Archivos del Terror” de Marta Landli Gil, ciudadana argentina de 22 años quién escapó de la represión refugiándose en Paraguay, con cuatro compañeros más, en donde fueron capturados en 1977. Extraída de este  artículo  sobre Plan Cóndor. La ficha completa con mayores detalles está disponible  aquí

Sobre los documentos secretos recientemente desclasificados en Estados Unidos, se lee en este  artículo  que: “Este archivo es uno de los lugares que guarda los documentos desclasificados del Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos sobre las dictaduras de la región. Osorio declaró diez horas en el juicio oral por el Cóndor que se hace en Buenos Aires y que la semana próxima entra en la etapa de alegatos. El investigador presentó un Excel de 900 documentos, 40 por ciento de los cuales provienen del acervo norteamericano y otro tanto del Archivo del Terror paraguayo. De los 900, seleccionó 100 para la audiencia. Su serie no empieza en 1975 con la sabida conferencia de Inteligencia en Chile, en la que se instituyó formalmente la coordinación de las fuerzas represivas bajo el nombre de Cóndor. Empieza en 1972, algo que es su clave de lectura sobre ese proceso. Cuando los defensores vieron en la pantalla de la sala la primera pieza, uno levantó la mano alarmado y objetó lo que le parecía fuera del objeto de juicio. El presidente del Tribunal Oral Federal N° 1 Oscar Amirante lo interrumpió: “Usted tiene conocimiento de cuándo empezó el Plan Cóndor –le dijo el juez–, el tribunal todavía no”.

Se puede leer, por parte del hijo de unas de las víctimas de nacionalidad paraguaya, Federico Jorge Tatter Morínigo, que: “Como querellante en la causa y como representante de mi madre, Idalina Tatter, ya fallecida, quien puso mucho empeño en este juicio desde el inicio, estaré presente en el momento histórico en que se dé lectura a la sentencia. Esperamos que el veredicto honre este gran esfuerzo por la justicia” (ver  nota de Ultima Hora, Paraguay).

El Plan Cóndor y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
En varias sentencias sobre casos de desapariciones forzadas llevados a conocimiento del juez interamericano de derechos humanos, se hace mención de los efectos del Plan Cóndor.

En el caso Gelman contra Uruguay (Etapa de reparaciones, 2011) , la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos se refirió en los siguientes términos a la Operación Cóndor: “La mayoría de los gobiernos dictatoriales de la región del Cono Sur asumieron el poder o estaban en el poder durante la década de los años setenta24, lo que permitió la represión contra personas denominadas como “elementos subversivos” a nivel interestatal. El soporte ideológico de todos estos regímenes era la “doctrina de seguridad nacional”, por medio de la cual visualizaban a los movimientos de izquierda y otros grupos como “enemigos comunes” sin importar su nacionalidad. Miles de ciudadanos del Cono Sur buscaron escapar a la represión de sus países de origen refugiándose en países fronterizos. Frente a ello, las dictaduras crearon una estrategia común de “defensa”.

En este marco, tuvo lugar la llamada “Operación Cóndor”, nombre clave que se dio a la alianza que unía a las fuerzas de seguridad y servicios de inteligencia de las dictaduras del Cono Sur en su lucha y represión contra personas designadas como “elementos subversivos”. Las actividades desplegadas como parte de dicha Operación estaban básicamente coordinadas por los militares de los países involucrados. Dicha Operación sistematizó e hizo más efectiva la coordinación clandestina entre “fuerzas de seguridad y militares y servicios de inteligencia” de la región […] Para que la Operación Cóndor funcionara era necesario que el sistema de códigos y comunicaciones fuera eficaz, por lo que las listas de “subversivos buscados” eran manejadas con fluidez por los distintos Estados” (párrafo 44 de la sentencia – ver texto completo).

En otro caso dictaminado por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos contra Paraguay (caso Goiburú y otros contra Paraguay, Sentencia sobre fondo y reparaciones) se lee que:

“En el caso paraguayo, el Departamento de Inteligencia Militar estuvo a cargo de la coordinación operativa de lo relativo a la Operación Cóndor, cuyo responsable era el entonces coronel Benito Guanes Serrano. Los servicios policiales de inteligencia secundaban las directivas recibidas de dicho departamento, quedando la función operativa a cargo del Jefe de Investigaciones de la Policía, Pastor Milciades Coronel. El Departamento de Investigaciones era el “centro nervioso de la inteligencia política”. La recolección de datos era realizada por funcionarios policiales infiltrados en organizaciones políticas, sociales, sindicales, centros estudiantiles y todo tipo de organismos públicos o privados. 61.10 Sobre los pasos por seguir al detener a un presunto “elemento subversivo”, el Jefe del Departamento de Investigaciones, Pastor Milciades Coronel, manifestó que había tres caminos: 1) Aplicación de la Ley, 2) Desaparición Física y 3) La Alternativa Aplicada. ” (párrafos 61.9 y 61.10 de la sentencia- ver texto completo)
Conclusión

La sentencia leída este 27 de mayo en Buenos Aires  constituye sin lugar a dudas un hito histórico para la lucha contra la impunidad en América Latina, y puede abrir un precedente para proseguir la labor en otros Estados de la región: sus aparatos judiciales no han logrado ofrecer lo que la justicia de Argentina brinda a las organizaciones de víctimas y de familiares de víctimas. Esta sentencia también permitirá reorientar algunas investigaciones sobre hechos ocurridos en los 80. Por ejemplo, hace unos pocos días, se anunció que Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay ayudarán a las autoridades de Ecuador en la investigación relacionada al accidente sufrido por el Presidente Jaime Roldós Aguilera en 1981: ello a raíz de un reciente documental que sugiere que el Plan Cóndor no es para nada ajeno a este “accidente aéreo” (ver nota de prensa).

Nicolás Boeglin

 

 

Nicolás Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR)

 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Plan Condor: Justicia Argentina se Pronuncia

Circles of War and Imperialism: The Proximity of Global Warfare. Derailing the War Spiral

June 5th, 2016 by Johnny Gaunt

In the UK we have to hold up a mirror to ourselves and accept our own culpability in this global horror-show. Britain’s imperialist pursuit of wealth and power has never really stopped, only changed its mask to better hide its behaviour [1]. The present mask was created under the auspices of neoliberal dogma. It is producing terrible repercussions for our future generations [2].

The UK’s imperialist policy fits snuggly as a small piece within a much grander Western agenda. It has been a major contributor to extreme global inequality, brutal proxy wars and increases in poverty worldwide [3]. Societies caught up directly are now entering a process of either breaking down or rising up. This is happening in response to a neoliberal agenda being pushed by the US and the EU.

Breaking Down and Rising Up

Social unrest is no longer exclusive only to nations outside of Western Europe and the US. Serious internal problems are occurring in both regions. Whilst over 1.1 million people in the UK use food banks [4], states in the US are being compared to ‘third worlds’ [5].

Explosions of civil upheaval in Ferguson, Baltimore, New Orleans and Flint may seem like unrelated events but all are intrinsically linked to neoliberal policy [6]. A US police crack down was intended to keep protestors in check and assuage the rising public anger, but this has quickly mutated into a series of brutal murders and attacks, predominantly of people from black communities [7].

The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton race, which looks to have finally ousted the one occasionally sensible voice in Bernie Sanders, has resulted from a paring down of public opinion by the US media. The level of debate has become so debased it has been forced to cling to simple ‘truths’ and re-spin them time and time again. ‘Trump is a loudmouth racist’ [8] has been used to drown out anything interesting he has to say if it runs at right-angles to neoliberal thinking. Despite being a product of corporatism, Trump has spent a lifetime being able to do as he pleases – a benefit of extreme wealth within the capitalist system – and this attitude has continued into the race for president. He has not had the political apprenticeship (indoctrination) of most other candidates, which coupled with his obvious forthright nature has lent him the ability to flit in and out of Overton’s window [9] like a cat burglar.

Reversely, Hillary Clinton’s gender has become a major focus point in her campaign [10], and the media who support her have used this to stifle debate about her ties with Wall Street and corporatism [11]. She expounds ‘American exceptionalism’ [13] with a view to promoting global conflict [14]. It’s almost as though she feels to be taken seriously as a female politician, she must be even more hawkish than her male counterparts [15].

The people of the US have been robbed of an election. Instead of voting for a candidate, a major part of the electorate have found themselves voting to keep out the other [16]. Barely anywhere does it show that out of the two of them, Trump is by far less eager to go to war.

Europe’s burgeoning extreme-right parties are posturing for power in Hungary, Austria and Poland [17], with the EU bolstering national policies of austerity with their own ‘recommendations’ [18] in line with neoliberal doctrine. The EU has in many ways forced member states into policies of austerity, as with the labour reforms in France [19]. Right now, the French public are in the midst of mass protests and blockades [20]. The scenes are reminiscent of the 1968 uprising [21]; the revolution that never was.

In Greece, the economic collapse has pushed an unelected body, the Troika (IMF, Eurozone & ECB), into a position that supersedes the democratically elected Syriza government [22]. Coupled with the refugee crisis, created in most part by Western interventionism in the Middle East and north Africa, the Greek people have been abandoned by the EU authorities to fend for themselves, just when European solidarity is most needed. This is no cruel accident, it is deliberate and meant to set an example to any other states thinking about using left-wing theory to escape crippling debt [23].

To believe we are ultimately more at risk of external terrorism than our own social implosion is to be blindly embedded deep within the ‘comfort’ of Western fictions.

Mainstream Media’s Indifference to War

I doubt even regular readers of news, people who like to consider themselves up to date with global matters, have any real idea of the proximity of global war [24]. This is because the majority of mainstream news reports pumped into our society is at best biased towards Western imperialism [25], and at worst quite simply lies [26]. Unfortunately for Syrians, the conflict that began in Daraa in 2011 has come to best illustrate this.

Complex media channels are at work deep within the dynamics of the Syrian conflict to a degree never witnessed before. Misinformation springs from unaccountable groups and lands, via a fourth sector network, centre stage in Western news headlines.

The groups that I am referring to are the many LNGOs (Local Non Governmental Organisation) that have emerged in order to “support the Syrian people”, each with a monopoly on the ‘truth’. Many of these groups, including NGOs from nations funding the opposition terrorists in Syria (Saudi, Qatar, US, etc), have backgrounds that have gone unchecked after an initial qualifying process:

Syrian organizations predominantly cropped up in response to the crisis and included grassroots organizations from inside the country as well as diaspora run organizations from the US, UK, Turkey and the Gulf… Less is known about Gulf supported NGOs. Gulf countries tend to fund their own national NGOs and Red Crescent organizations, which in turn fund Syrian organizations. [27]

It is only when some have been scrutinised more closely that their claims of impartiality have been blown out of the water.[28][29][30]

In an interview for The Telegraph in October, 2013, Peter Clarke, who sits on the board of the Charity Commission and a former head of anti-terrorism for the London Metropolitan Police said:

Once you get into these very difficult, dangerous areas it is hugely difficult for charities to track the final destination of their funds… It is one of these ‘fog of war’ issues where stuff can be diverted… It is perfectly feasible for charities to be established as a sort of cover. We have not seen clear evidence of that yet… You can think of a host of different ways in which people giving money with the best possible intentions could find that it has been misappropriated.[31]

The White Helmets [32], The Syria Campaign [33], Syria Solidarity UK [34] and Hand in Hand for Syria [34] are just four NGOs which hold questionable claim to their impartiality. They have polished websites which produce high quality, emotive social media memes that quickly spread over the internet. At the same time, established international non-profits like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Int, have gradually aligned their fundamental principles with Western geopolitical goals [35], [36].

To anyone paying attention, it has become glaringly obvious that the number one priority of the US-led coalition in Syria is to bring about ‘regime change’ [37]. Way down that to-do list comes ‘defeating terrorism’, which is the official reason for foreign military power being in Syria. Although it hasn’t stopped the US in Latin America [38], regime change is illegal under international law. But even if the Latin American example was followed and international law was ignored, removing Bashar al-Assad (who has recently been voted president by over 5 million Syrians out of a possible 8.3 million [39]) it would lead to a greatly worsened situation for the Syrian people. Look to recent adventurism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as examples of military failures [40].

The most likely replacement for the Assad government would come from the present fighting opposition, made up almost entirely of sectarian factions and terrorist groups (al Nusra; al Sham; Free Syrian Army; Army of Conquest; Farouk Brigades; etc) [41]. Granted, there maybe some Syrian civilians who would embrace a non-secular, salafist government, but there are also many more, including millions of Syrian women and girls, who would not.

The West’s demonising of Bashar al-Assad is designed to fit with the spiralling war-loops of its foreign policy. Democracy does not come by way of bombs or arming terrorists to attack a sovereign government, despite the West’s  policy [42]. It comes by close diplomatic engagement and appropriate international pressure to encourage change. But mainly, it comes from the voices of the Syrian people, because only they will decide Syria’s fate.

Derailing the War Spiral

In order to change our direction away from perpetual cycles of conflict, we must understand the commitment to war some of our global public bodies and information services has. The UN has become a useless broker, usurped by the US who flaunts international law whenever it feels like it [43]. Neoliberalism actively pursues an aggressive foreign policy, and this doctrine has become prolific throughout the West. It has even bleached into many of the institutions we might consider politically neutral, like Amnesty, Avaaz [44] or Save the Children [45].

Nietzsche said, ‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.’ Are we yet beginning to understand that true information is far more valuable than the capture of land or the endless chase of capital? If so [46], it is in part the commencement of a mindset shift that brings with it a more mentally independent Western citizen, able to analyse information for themselves. This means engaging with news from a range of sources, but remaining highly sceptical of them before accepting (or not accepting) what they have to say.

This is particularly useful with so-called ‘liberal’ outlets like The Guardian, The Observer or The Independent. The news groups and government organisations these belong to are embedded deep within the neoliberal apparatus surrounding us, and their decisions to publish or not publish certain information will always reflect this [47].

The ability to firmly grasp hold of the instruments navigating us to war and wrench at the wheel is within us all. We need to be brave and prepared to tolerate the anger and disapproval of authorities and individuals who do not yet see through bias, lies and omissions. The information that comes into our society has for centuries been controlled and filtered by elitist systems, such as today’s media complex, academia [48] and publishing. The evolution of independent internet news outlets have been, in many ways, an organic development to circumvent these systems, although these too need to be engaged in a critical and analytical manner. Some with extreme caution!

The internet and neoliberalism have almost coincided. I wonder how much further down this path of destruction we would have been without it? Nonetheless, it is war that has the momentum right now, not peace.

Johnny Gaunt lives in Wales, UK. He is a peace activist, writer and occasional radiographer.

Notes

[1] http://www.markcurtis.info/

[2] http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/12/blowback-british-imperialism-in-the-middle-east/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

[4] https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/

[5] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/six-ways-america-is-like-a-third-world-country-20140305

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/25/how-flint-ferguson-and-baltimore-are-all-connected/

[7] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men

[8] http://uk.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-donald-trump-belligerent-loudmouth-racist-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

[9] www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/what-overton-window

[10] http://www.npr.org/2016/04/11/473792646/is-it-ok-to-vote-for-clinton-because-she-s-a-woman-an-8-year-old-weighs-in

[11] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillarys_corporate_democrats_taking_down_bernie_sanders_20160130

[12] http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/01/5-reasons-not-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

[13] http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/american-exceptionalism-destructive-elitism-versus-constructive-humanity/

[14] http://www.salon.com/2016/03/20/it_is_urgent_that_shes_stopped_hillary_clintons_nightmare_neoliberalism_and_american_exceptionalism_makes_the_world_a_dangerous_place/

[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

[16] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-anti-vote-idUSKCN0XX06E

[17] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/22/world/europe/europe-right-wing-austria-hungary.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

[18] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/austerity-europe-debt-red-cross

[19] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/26/pers-m26.html

[20] http://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/18354-france-savage-labour-law-vs-strikes-and-blockades

[21] http://www.gearoidocolmain.org/labour-protests-continue-french-workers-fight-back/

[22] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/greek-debt-crisis-the-dark-forces-of-the-eu-have-subjected-greece-to-a-coup-caroline-lucas-condemns-10385452.html

[23] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/09/the-choice-for-europe-rescue-greece-or-create-a-failed-state

[24] http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/23/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence/

[25] http://muftah.org/the-real-face-of-a-western-media-bias/#.V0sGvmZftsN

[26] https://www.rt.com/op-edge/260821-propaganda-book-west-lies/

[27] http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/syria_case_study.pdf

[28] http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/01/white-helmets-new-breed-of-mercenaries-and-propagandists-disguised-as-humanitarians-in-syria/

[29] http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-syria-solidarity-ngo-supports-moderate-terrorists-bans-prof-tim-anderson-from-conference/5526871

[30] https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/

[31] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10357537/Charity-cash-going-to-Syrian-terror-groups.html

[32] http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/10/09/432620/US-Russia-Syria-psyop

[33] http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/the-syria-campaign/

[34] http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-solidarity-uk-supporting-al-qaeda-and-denying-free-speech/5527476

[35] http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8084

[36] http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/08/amnesty-international-war-propaganda-and-human-rights-terrorism/

[37] http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/27/467689/Syria-Russia-US-peace-talks-terrorists-UN-NATO

[38] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/venezuela-protests-us-support-regime-change-mistake

[39] http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/04/18/live-from-damascus-the-syrian-election-results/

[40] http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/west-s-return-iraq-afghanistan-and-libya-proves-warmongers-wrong-395433254

[41] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

[42] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-warns-that-the-west-cant-bomb-our-way-to-democracy-in-syria-a6755861.html

[43] http://www.thenation.com/article/you-must-follow-international-law-unless-youre-america/

[44] http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/category/organizations/amnesty-international/

[45] https://newint.org/blog/2014/11/26/tony-blair-save-the-children/

[46] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-political-awakening-and-the-new-world-order/19873

[47] http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

[48] http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-truth-and-the-failure-of-the-academic-community-to-explore-the-events-of-september-11-2001/5399487

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Circles of War and Imperialism: The Proximity of Global Warfare. Derailing the War Spiral

Double Standards: Unrelenting Anti-Trump Media Campaign, Coverup of Hillary “Racketeering Charges”

June 5th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. A Trump presidency would be disastrous domestically and geopolitically.

A previous article said his only redeeming quality is he’s not Hillary Clinton, The Times favorite, endorsing her candidacy, ignoring her criminal record as first lady partnered with husband Bill, US senator and secretary of state.

She’s vulnerable to racketeering charges, the Clinton Foundation a covert criminal enterprise masquerading as a charitable NGO, selling influence for millions of dollars in contributions, the Clintons enriching themselves hugely while falsely claiming to do good.

The latest Times anti-Trump rant claims he “could threaten US rule of law,” citing “conservative and libertarian” sources agreeing with its point of view, ignoring fantasy US democracy, tyranny begun under Bill Clinton, hardened under Bush, institutionalized under Obama.

International law no longer matters. Constitutional law is null and void. Police state ruthlessness replaced it.

On issues relating to war and peace, corporate favoritism and cracking down hard on popular resistance, both wings of US duopoly governance march in lockstep.

America was never beautiful, its privileged few alone served, notably under Clinton, Bush and Obama, likely rising to an unprecedented level of unbridled militarism, corporate favoritism and crackdowns on remaining freedoms if Hillary becomes America’s 45th president – a terrifying possibility, The Times suppressing what’s vital to explain.

It claims Trump’s “constitutional worldview…shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and the rule of law,” – ignoring Obama’s war on press freedom throughout his tenure, threatening independent journalism, criminalizing whistleblowers exposing government wrongdoing more than all his predecessors combined.

The late Helen Thomas (1920 – 2013) covered five decades of presidential politics, beginning in the Kennedy years.

She publicly complained about Obama’s press controlling efforts, calling it “really shocking,” saying “(w)hat the hell do they think we are, puppets?”

Press control under Obama is worse than anything earlier, she explained. Throughout his tenure, he waged war on fundamental freedoms, exceeding the worst of George Bush.

Mass surveillance became institutionalized, rule of law principles ignored, information control elevated to a whole new level.

Trump has no political record on which to judge him, just his campaign bluster and demagoguery. Clinton’s rap sheet would automatically disqualify her in just societies.

She’d be in prison, not likely to become Democrat party nominee in July, a testimony to America’s debauched political system, honoring its worst, demeaning or punishing its best.

The Times claiming “electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis” ignores its deplorable state, tyranny heading toward becoming full-blown, rule of law governance nonexistent, endless imperial wars raging, America’s domestic and foreign gulag the world’s largest, filled with thousands of political prisoners.

Trump if elected president assures dirty business as usual. Hillary succeeding Obama risks WW III.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Double Standards: Unrelenting Anti-Trump Media Campaign, Coverup of Hillary “Racketeering Charges”

Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Does the Advertising Giant Dentsu Pull the Strings of Japan’s Media?

June 5th, 2016 by Mathieu Gaulène

French journalist Mathieu Gaulène describes the business practices of Dentsu and its competitor Hakuhodo, the biggest and the second biggest advertising companies of Japan respectively. Specifically, it examines how their close relations to the media and the nuclear industry play out in the wake of the 3.11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. Focusing Dentsu, Gaulène discusses how the marketing and public relations (PR) giant has dominated major media which large advertising contracts from the nuclear industry. The article is particularly timely as Dentsu unveils its deep ties to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic bid and the Panama Papers. Regrettably, however, with rare exceptions, there is little media coverage of the influence of Dentsu in mainstream Japanese newspapers and magazines.

According to the author, a partial translation of the French original was made by Kazparis (username), and quickly received more than 70,000 views on Twitter. Then, Uchida Tatsuru, a specialist in French literature, and HACK & SOCIETAS published two other Japanese translations. Soon after, Tokyo Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun published long articles about Dentsu. SN

Dentsu, the fifth largest communication group in the world, holds a large share of the Japanese advertising market, which impacts media freedom in Japan. This is particularly true in relation to the nuclear power industry.

– Dentsu and information on nuclear power

– Indirect pressures on press journalists

– The 2016 comeback of nuclear advertisements and the resignations of TV journalists

The moment remains famous. On the eve of Japan’s Upper House elections, former actor Yamamoto Taro, an anti-nuclear power candidate supported by no party, campaigned on Twitter to win an upper house seat in the Diet. Censored by the media, the young candidate, famous for his verve, had mainly campaigned against nuclear power, but he also called out the big media, accusing it of being in the pay of sponsors and thus of electric companies and of systematically censoring critical information on nuclear power.

A television channel granted him an interview at the end of a program, but only after presenting a journalist to defend his profession. On screen, the young senator was given only one minute to respond. “I will take a simple example. Food can now hold up to 100 becquerels per kilogram; that means even just via eating we are irradiated. It is never said on television… ” Yamamoto had to stop. The ending jingle started, and the presenter at the studio announced, bantering, that the show was over, before launching an advertising page.

The video, which was available online for 3 years, was removed on May 16, 2016 shortly after the publication of this article.

Yamamoto Taro on NHK, 21 July 2013

Advertisements in Japan are literally everywhere: a veritable hell of posters or screens in trains and stations, giant posters on buildings, bearers of advertising placards or lorries with huge posters and loud PA systems in the streets: even advertising displays mounted atop urinals in some restaurants. In this advertising empire, the media are no exception. In the press, naturally, as in France, major companies pay for full page advertisements. But, above all in television. An entertainment show generally starts with the announcement of sponsors, and is interrupted every five minutes by numerous short advertising spots, where we often find the same sponsors. There is virtually no time for thinking, most TV channels offer programs close to the world of pachinko: garish colors, constant noise, and frat humor even of the most vulgar kind.

In this immense television arena, advertising is orchestrated by one of the global giants, Dentsu, the 5th communication group in the world and the number one ad agency. With its rival Hakuhodo, 2nd in the archipelago, the two agencies nicknamed “Denpaku,” combine advertising, public relations, media monitoring, crisis management for the largest Japanese and foreign companies, the local authorities, political parties or the government. Together they hold nearly 70% of the market. A true empire that some accuse of ruling the roost in the Japanese media.

A figure allows sizing up Dentsu’s reach: in 2015, the group secured nearly 7 billion euros in revenue, second only to the French Publicis with 9.6 billion euros during the same period. Most of its business is in TV advertisements. For example, Dentsu has created a commercial series for Softbank for almost ten years: the famous “Shirato” family characterized by a white dog as the father; an American black actor as the older brother; and Tommy Lee Jones as a housekeeper.

In July 2013, the group expanded internationally by acquiring the British Aegis for 3.7 billion euros to establish the Dentsu Aegis Network in London. This international network, consisting of ten advertising agencies in more than 140 countries, allowed the Japanese to beef up their activities, particularly in digital marketing, and to secure a position in the international market which accounts for more than half of its total global business (54.3% in 2015). Dentsu employs 47,000 people worldwide, including 7,000 in Japan.

Dentsu and information on nuclear power

Dentsu headquarters, Shiodome

Located in the business district of Shiodome, not far from Nippon TV, Fuji TV and the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, the Dentsu tower dominates the skyline with its imposing beauty. Designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel, its gentle curves and perfect glass walls soothe the eye. Inside the building, Mr. Kannan Shusaku, communications director of the group, receives us, all smiles for a visit of the site. The ground floor is filled with contemporary art, like a white chessboard by Yoko Ono. From there, a noria of lifts takes employees towards different floors and rigorously separates departments. The group’s customers are the top 5 in each industry, and “everything is done so that employees working for competing enterprises never meet each other.” Mr. Kannan assures us. Dentsu obviously prizes transparency, but is its image that stainless?

In a book published in 2012, Honma Ryu looked into some of Dentsu’s backstage, and its tight control over the media, especially on behalf of one of its major clients: Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tepco. Honma is not alien to advertising circles; he worked for 18 years at number 2, Hakuhodo, then after one year imprisonment for fraud, he began writing, first about his prison experience, then about his years of advertising and the methods he used to coax the media. In 2012, his book Dentsu and Nuclear Coverage became a bestseller within a few months, despite almost universal media blackout.

Honma meticulously described the mechanisms by which Dentsu, the inevitable intermediary, implicitly imposes on media what can or cannot be written on nuclear power, and under what conditions. “Dentsu occupies a special position since the agency holds 80% of the market for nuclear advertising in Japan,” he reminded us during an interview in a coffee shop at Ueno Station. In 2010, in this huge advertising market, Tepco, a regional firm, indeed ranked 10th in terms of advertising expenses, next to power plant manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. That year, on the eve of the Fukushima accident, Tepco had spent more than 2 million euros on advertising. The overall advertising expenses of the 10 regional electrical power companies amounted to 7 million euros.

Honma Ryu, Dentsu and Nuclear Coverage

For decades, especially since the 1990s when public opinion began to become critical of nuclear power following several accidents, Tepco and other power companies stepped up commercials and advertorials in the press.

On television, the advertisements can be enough in themselves to overwhelm criticism. Big groups often sponsor TV programs, talk shows or series for an entire season. Sometimes, entire documentaries are produced by Denjiren, [the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC)], a key player in the nuclear lobby, to promote the industry. Any dissenting voice is unwelcome for fear of losing sponsors. After Fukushima, Yamamoto Taro paid the price; appearing regularly on TV as a tarento [talent] until then when he suddenly became persona non grata on TV and even in cinema for having expressed opposition to nuclear power. This is hardly new since the great figures of the anti-nuclear movement, best-selling authors such as Hirose Takashi or Koide Hiroaki are almost never invited to appear on TV, especially after the Fukushima accident. This “control by media” denounced by Honma Ryu obviously is not limited to the nuclear power industry. Thus, he reminds us of the case of the millions of Toyota vehicle recalls due to a defective accelerator pedal. It was necessary to wait until the Toyota CEO apologized to the U.S. Congress before that affair really appeared in the Japanese press. “No doubt the advertising agency had succeeded until then in preserving the image of its client, but when the scandal became too big and was in the public eye abroad, the media had no choice but to reveal the affair” he states. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that apart from some programs such as “Hodo Station” on TV Asahi, which provide good quality information, sometimes being critical of the government, most TV news in Japan rarely address subjects that can offend one or another group, relaying communications from the government without critically stepping back, and not introducing international news except when the subject involves Japanese citizens.

Momii Katsuto apologizing at Lower House Budget Committee session, 13 January 2016

Amid all these private media groups, only NHK escapes this advertising empire and can claim to be independent, receiving its funding directly from viewers. Alas, the situation at NHK is even more disastrous, its president Momii Katsuto having said without embarrassment on several occasions that the chain had to be the spokesman for the Abe government. In a recent statement before 200 retired NHK employees, he even seemingly acknowledged having ordered NHK journalists to confine broadcasts to reassuring communiqués from the authorities about Kyushu earthquakes and potential risks they pose to nuclear plants and instructing them not to interview independent experts.

Indirect pressures on the press

What about the press? Dentsu has long had a special relationship with the two news agencies Kyodo News and Jiji Press: the three entities formed a single information group before the war. If information in the press is more difficult to control, Dentsu not only advertises, but provides after-sales customer service — media monitoring, advice on crisis management, and indirect pressure on newspapers.

Whereas in France, the acquisition of media companies by large industrial groups is the prelude to direct pressure, in Japan pressure comes via advertising agencies that act as true ambassadors for the groups. “I know very well how this happens, as Honma Ryu amusingly relates, I did the same thing when I was at Hakuhodo. If an incident occurs in a factory or a plant and the press reports it, Dentsu directly intervenes and visits the business department of the newspaper in question.” Things are done in the “Japanese” way. “We ask them politely to try to speak less about the case, not to put the article on the front page, or to publish it in the evening paper which is less read.” Such messages are directly transmitted by the business staff of the journal to top management.

Journalists will never know, but the next day their article will be relegated to the inside pages, or sometimes simply not published, or, for example, claiming lack of space. But, suspicions are numerous, and, Honma reports, after the publication of his book, many journalists came to see him confirming cases of censorship. Advertisements of nuclear power are mainly distributed in weekly and daily newspapers. Since the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant, they stopped; but for Dentsu, a profitable new business emerged: promoting agricultural products from Fukushima. Since 2011, with the participation of star singers, Fukushima Prefecture has never skimped on promoting its peaches, rice, or tomatoes, with slogans like “Fukushima Pride” or “Fukushima is well!”

 “Fukushima Pride”

All this thanks to the help of Dentsu and Dentsu Public Relations (PR). “Dentsu PR also works for the METI [Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry],” explains Ms. Fujii Kyoko, Director of communications at Dentsu PR. “We organized free tours of Tohoku for foreign journalists, such as Thai and Malaysian journalists, to show that the region is recovering from the disaster.” And to expunge the surrounding radioactivity?

Dentsu thus occupies a very special position in the promotion of nuclear power, beside Tepco but also the powerful Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), both clients of the advertising company. Under these conditions, can Dentsu not be considered to actively underwrite the “nuclear village”? To this question, Mr. Kannan Shusaku, who received us in his office at the top of the Dentsu tower, answered without beating around the bush. “We have no power to influence the media and we do not practice politics.” Yet when asked why Dentsu is a member of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF), the main organization of nuclear lobbying, along with Japanese electric utility companies and EDF [Electricity of France, Électricité de France], Mr. Kannan became more circumspect. “I do not know this association… Really, are you sure?” he replied, slightly annoyed, before reaching for his smartphone. “Oh, yes, we are members. But, you know we are members of many associations. People ask us to send someone and sign, that’s all.” Apparently unconvinced by his own argument, he finally found a getaway and suddenly exclaimed: “You see, Hakuhodo is also a member!” obviously happy about not being the only one enlisted in the lobby.

The 2016 comeback of nuclear advertisements and resignations of TV journalists

For Honma Ryu, this is a sign of a resumption of promotion activities of nuclear power. “Hakuhodo has actually been a member of the JAIF for two years,” he explained, after the Fukushima accident. Obviously, having been sidelined for several decades from this gold mine of nuclear advertisements, the rival agency wants to restore its share in the promotion of nuclear power in the post-Fukushima era. These ads had, however, completely disappeared since the accident on March 11, 2011. After a final full page apology in the press and broadcast on television by Tepco, the plant operators and manufacturers had chosen to keep a low profile, not broadcasting advertisements on nuclear power for five years.

But, although plant restarts have been hindered by dozens of lawsuits, some victorious as in Takahama, and the general population has generally been reluctant to see resumption of reactors, promoting nuclear power has again become intense. After restarting one plant in 2015, 2016 is the year of a discreet comeback for nuclear advertisements. These appear in the press and on local television of the prefectures with power stations. Honma Ryu reports that since February 2016, full-page advertisements have been published inFukui Shimbun by the Kansai Electric Power Company, where the Takahama plant was closed a month after its restart due to a lawsuit filed by citizens. Tepco advertisements for restarting Kashiwazaki-Kariwa have also appeared in the Niigata Nippo and on local television in a particular context: the current governor is firmly anti-nuclear and opposes any restart, but elections will be held by the end of this year when his term ends. This resurgence of Tepco nuclear advertising, however, has raised the ire of Niigata citizens, especially refugees from Fukushima who have launched a petition to stop them.

The message of all of these advertisements is identical, revealing the hand of Dentsu behind the scenes. Electric companies promise to make every effort to ensure the safety of power plants, while photographs highlight the plight of nuclear workers who are often poor and sometimes dependent on jobs in the nuclear industry. According to Honma Ryu, these advertisements are certainly only the tip of the iceberg. They are part of a campaign to closely monitor all information published on nuclear power, as well as the quasi-guarantee that local newspapers will limit the voice of opponents.

Furutachi Ichiro on “Hodo Station”

In a report on press freedom released in April 2016, Reporters Without Borders ranked Japan 72nd, behind Hungary and Tanzania. Six years ago, it ranked 11th. Visiting Tokyo, a United Nations rapporteur alerted the country to the growing pressures on Japanese journalists who work for private media or NHK. This is because of increasing government pressure, exacerbated by the entry into force in the past year of a law on state secrets, including nuclear related matters. A law with vague outlines threatens journalists with imprisonment for disclosing “secret” information. A sign of the times is that three television journalists known for their independence announced their resignation at the beginning of the year. Among them is Furutachi Ichiro, presenter of “Hodo Station,” which, according to Honma Ryu, was targeted by Dentsu for several years because of his critical views on nuclear power and the Abe administration. No doubt Dentsu, privileged ambassador of the largest industrial groups, will continue to play its role in the great media lockdown ongoing in Japan.

Sachie Mizohata, Translation from French and Introduction

Original French article in INA Global

Japanese translation by Uchida Tatsuru (see May 15, 2016)

Mathieu Gaulène, a freelance journalist, holds a Master’s degree in Asian studies from Sciences Po, Paris. As a specialist on Japan, he has written for INA-Global, Le Monde, Politis, Slate.fr, and other publications. He has covered topics ranging from Japanese politics, popular culture, to new technologies. He is the author of the book Le nucléaire en Asie. Fukushima, et après ? (Éditions Philippe Picquier, 2016).

Sachie Mizohata is a Luxembourg-based translator. Her article related to media and nuclear power is http://apjjf.org/2011/9/39/Sachie-MIZOHATA/3648/article.html Her sites are as follows: here and here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Does the Advertising Giant Dentsu Pull the Strings of Japan’s Media?

Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Does the Advertising Giant Dentsu Pull the Strings of Japan’s Media?

June 5th, 2016 by Mathieu Gaulène

French journalist Mathieu Gaulène describes the business practices of Dentsu and its competitor Hakuhodo, the biggest and the second biggest advertising companies of Japan respectively. Specifically, it examines how their close relations to the media and the nuclear industry play out in the wake of the 3.11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. Focusing Dentsu, Gaulène discusses how the marketing and public relations (PR) giant has dominated major media which large advertising contracts from the nuclear industry. The article is particularly timely as Dentsu unveils its deep ties to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic bid and the Panama Papers. Regrettably, however, with rare exceptions, there is little media coverage of the influence of Dentsu in mainstream Japanese newspapers and magazines.

According to the author, a partial translation of the French original was made by Kazparis (username), and quickly received more than 70,000 views on Twitter. Then, Uchida Tatsuru, a specialist in French literature, and HACK & SOCIETAS published two other Japanese translations. Soon after, Tokyo Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun published long articles about Dentsu. SN

Dentsu, the fifth largest communication group in the world, holds a large share of the Japanese advertising market, which impacts media freedom in Japan. This is particularly true in relation to the nuclear power industry.

– Dentsu and information on nuclear power

– Indirect pressures on press journalists

– The 2016 comeback of nuclear advertisements and the resignations of TV journalists

The moment remains famous. On the eve of Japan’s Upper House elections, former actor Yamamoto Taro, an anti-nuclear power candidate supported by no party, campaigned on Twitter to win an upper house seat in the Diet. Censored by the media, the young candidate, famous for his verve, had mainly campaigned against nuclear power, but he also called out the big media, accusing it of being in the pay of sponsors and thus of electric companies and of systematically censoring critical information on nuclear power.

A television channel granted him an interview at the end of a program, but only after presenting a journalist to defend his profession. On screen, the young senator was given only one minute to respond. “I will take a simple example. Food can now hold up to 100 becquerels per kilogram; that means even just via eating we are irradiated. It is never said on television… ” Yamamoto had to stop. The ending jingle started, and the presenter at the studio announced, bantering, that the show was over, before launching an advertising page.

The video, which was available online for 3 years, was removed on May 16, 2016 shortly after the publication of this article.

Yamamoto Taro on NHK, 21 July 2013

Advertisements in Japan are literally everywhere: a veritable hell of posters or screens in trains and stations, giant posters on buildings, bearers of advertising placards or lorries with huge posters and loud PA systems in the streets: even advertising displays mounted atop urinals in some restaurants. In this advertising empire, the media are no exception. In the press, naturally, as in France, major companies pay for full page advertisements. But, above all in television. An entertainment show generally starts with the announcement of sponsors, and is interrupted every five minutes by numerous short advertising spots, where we often find the same sponsors. There is virtually no time for thinking, most TV channels offer programs close to the world of pachinko: garish colors, constant noise, and frat humor even of the most vulgar kind.

In this immense television arena, advertising is orchestrated by one of the global giants, Dentsu, the 5th communication group in the world and the number one ad agency. With its rival Hakuhodo, 2nd in the archipelago, the two agencies nicknamed “Denpaku,” combine advertising, public relations, media monitoring, crisis management for the largest Japanese and foreign companies, the local authorities, political parties or the government. Together they hold nearly 70% of the market. A true empire that some accuse of ruling the roost in the Japanese media.

A figure allows sizing up Dentsu’s reach: in 2015, the group secured nearly 7 billion euros in revenue, second only to the French Publicis with 9.6 billion euros during the same period. Most of its business is in TV advertisements. For example, Dentsu has created a commercial series for Softbank for almost ten years: the famous “Shirato” family characterized by a white dog as the father; an American black actor as the older brother; and Tommy Lee Jones as a housekeeper.

In July 2013, the group expanded internationally by acquiring the British Aegis for 3.7 billion euros to establish the Dentsu Aegis Network in London. This international network, consisting of ten advertising agencies in more than 140 countries, allowed the Japanese to beef up their activities, particularly in digital marketing, and to secure a position in the international market which accounts for more than half of its total global business (54.3% in 2015). Dentsu employs 47,000 people worldwide, including 7,000 in Japan.

Dentsu and information on nuclear power

Dentsu headquarters, Shiodome

Located in the business district of Shiodome, not far from Nippon TV, Fuji TV and the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, the Dentsu tower dominates the skyline with its imposing beauty. Designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel, its gentle curves and perfect glass walls soothe the eye. Inside the building, Mr. Kannan Shusaku, communications director of the group, receives us, all smiles for a visit of the site. The ground floor is filled with contemporary art, like a white chessboard by Yoko Ono. From there, a noria of lifts takes employees towards different floors and rigorously separates departments. The group’s customers are the top 5 in each industry, and “everything is done so that employees working for competing enterprises never meet each other.” Mr. Kannan assures us. Dentsu obviously prizes transparency, but is its image that stainless?

In a book published in 2012, Honma Ryu looked into some of Dentsu’s backstage, and its tight control over the media, especially on behalf of one of its major clients: Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tepco. Honma is not alien to advertising circles; he worked for 18 years at number 2, Hakuhodo, then after one year imprisonment for fraud, he began writing, first about his prison experience, then about his years of advertising and the methods he used to coax the media. In 2012, his book Dentsu and Nuclear Coverage became a bestseller within a few months, despite almost universal media blackout.

Honma meticulously described the mechanisms by which Dentsu, the inevitable intermediary, implicitly imposes on media what can or cannot be written on nuclear power, and under what conditions. “Dentsu occupies a special position since the agency holds 80% of the market for nuclear advertising in Japan,” he reminded us during an interview in a coffee shop at Ueno Station. In 2010, in this huge advertising market, Tepco, a regional firm, indeed ranked 10th in terms of advertising expenses, next to power plant manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. That year, on the eve of the Fukushima accident, Tepco had spent more than 2 million euros on advertising. The overall advertising expenses of the 10 regional electrical power companies amounted to 7 million euros.

Honma Ryu, Dentsu and Nuclear Coverage

For decades, especially since the 1990s when public opinion began to become critical of nuclear power following several accidents, Tepco and other power companies stepped up commercials and advertorials in the press.

On television, the advertisements can be enough in themselves to overwhelm criticism. Big groups often sponsor TV programs, talk shows or series for an entire season. Sometimes, entire documentaries are produced by Denjiren, [the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC)], a key player in the nuclear lobby, to promote the industry. Any dissenting voice is unwelcome for fear of losing sponsors. After Fukushima, Yamamoto Taro paid the price; appearing regularly on TV as a tarento [talent] until then when he suddenly became persona non grata on TV and even in cinema for having expressed opposition to nuclear power. This is hardly new since the great figures of the anti-nuclear movement, best-selling authors such as Hirose Takashi or Koide Hiroaki are almost never invited to appear on TV, especially after the Fukushima accident. This “control by media” denounced by Honma Ryu obviously is not limited to the nuclear power industry. Thus, he reminds us of the case of the millions of Toyota vehicle recalls due to a defective accelerator pedal. It was necessary to wait until the Toyota CEO apologized to the U.S. Congress before that affair really appeared in the Japanese press. “No doubt the advertising agency had succeeded until then in preserving the image of its client, but when the scandal became too big and was in the public eye abroad, the media had no choice but to reveal the affair” he states. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that apart from some programs such as “Hodo Station” on TV Asahi, which provide good quality information, sometimes being critical of the government, most TV news in Japan rarely address subjects that can offend one or another group, relaying communications from the government without critically stepping back, and not introducing international news except when the subject involves Japanese citizens.

Momii Katsuto apologizing at Lower House Budget Committee session, 13 January 2016

Amid all these private media groups, only NHK escapes this advertising empire and can claim to be independent, receiving its funding directly from viewers. Alas, the situation at NHK is even more disastrous, its president Momii Katsuto having said without embarrassment on several occasions that the chain had to be the spokesman for the Abe government. In a recent statement before 200 retired NHK employees, he even seemingly acknowledged having ordered NHK journalists to confine broadcasts to reassuring communiqués from the authorities about Kyushu earthquakes and potential risks they pose to nuclear plants and instructing them not to interview independent experts.

Indirect pressures on the press

What about the press? Dentsu has long had a special relationship with the two news agencies Kyodo News and Jiji Press: the three entities formed a single information group before the war. If information in the press is more difficult to control, Dentsu not only advertises, but provides after-sales customer service — media monitoring, advice on crisis management, and indirect pressure on newspapers.

Whereas in France, the acquisition of media companies by large industrial groups is the prelude to direct pressure, in Japan pressure comes via advertising agencies that act as true ambassadors for the groups. “I know very well how this happens, as Honma Ryu amusingly relates, I did the same thing when I was at Hakuhodo. If an incident occurs in a factory or a plant and the press reports it, Dentsu directly intervenes and visits the business department of the newspaper in question.” Things are done in the “Japanese” way. “We ask them politely to try to speak less about the case, not to put the article on the front page, or to publish it in the evening paper which is less read.” Such messages are directly transmitted by the business staff of the journal to top management.

Journalists will never know, but the next day their article will be relegated to the inside pages, or sometimes simply not published, or, for example, claiming lack of space. But, suspicions are numerous, and, Honma reports, after the publication of his book, many journalists came to see him confirming cases of censorship. Advertisements of nuclear power are mainly distributed in weekly and daily newspapers. Since the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant, they stopped; but for Dentsu, a profitable new business emerged: promoting agricultural products from Fukushima. Since 2011, with the participation of star singers, Fukushima Prefecture has never skimped on promoting its peaches, rice, or tomatoes, with slogans like “Fukushima Pride” or “Fukushima is well!”

 “Fukushima Pride”

All this thanks to the help of Dentsu and Dentsu Public Relations (PR). “Dentsu PR also works for the METI [Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry],” explains Ms. Fujii Kyoko, Director of communications at Dentsu PR. “We organized free tours of Tohoku for foreign journalists, such as Thai and Malaysian journalists, to show that the region is recovering from the disaster.” And to expunge the surrounding radioactivity?

Dentsu thus occupies a very special position in the promotion of nuclear power, beside Tepco but also the powerful Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), both clients of the advertising company. Under these conditions, can Dentsu not be considered to actively underwrite the “nuclear village”? To this question, Mr. Kannan Shusaku, who received us in his office at the top of the Dentsu tower, answered without beating around the bush. “We have no power to influence the media and we do not practice politics.” Yet when asked why Dentsu is a member of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF), the main organization of nuclear lobbying, along with Japanese electric utility companies and EDF [Electricity of France, Électricité de France], Mr. Kannan became more circumspect. “I do not know this association… Really, are you sure?” he replied, slightly annoyed, before reaching for his smartphone. “Oh, yes, we are members. But, you know we are members of many associations. People ask us to send someone and sign, that’s all.” Apparently unconvinced by his own argument, he finally found a getaway and suddenly exclaimed: “You see, Hakuhodo is also a member!” obviously happy about not being the only one enlisted in the lobby.

The 2016 comeback of nuclear advertisements and resignations of TV journalists

For Honma Ryu, this is a sign of a resumption of promotion activities of nuclear power. “Hakuhodo has actually been a member of the JAIF for two years,” he explained, after the Fukushima accident. Obviously, having been sidelined for several decades from this gold mine of nuclear advertisements, the rival agency wants to restore its share in the promotion of nuclear power in the post-Fukushima era. These ads had, however, completely disappeared since the accident on March 11, 2011. After a final full page apology in the press and broadcast on television by Tepco, the plant operators and manufacturers had chosen to keep a low profile, not broadcasting advertisements on nuclear power for five years.

But, although plant restarts have been hindered by dozens of lawsuits, some victorious as in Takahama, and the general population has generally been reluctant to see resumption of reactors, promoting nuclear power has again become intense. After restarting one plant in 2015, 2016 is the year of a discreet comeback for nuclear advertisements. These appear in the press and on local television of the prefectures with power stations. Honma Ryu reports that since February 2016, full-page advertisements have been published inFukui Shimbun by the Kansai Electric Power Company, where the Takahama plant was closed a month after its restart due to a lawsuit filed by citizens. Tepco advertisements for restarting Kashiwazaki-Kariwa have also appeared in the Niigata Nippo and on local television in a particular context: the current governor is firmly anti-nuclear and opposes any restart, but elections will be held by the end of this year when his term ends. This resurgence of Tepco nuclear advertising, however, has raised the ire of Niigata citizens, especially refugees from Fukushima who have launched a petition to stop them.

The message of all of these advertisements is identical, revealing the hand of Dentsu behind the scenes. Electric companies promise to make every effort to ensure the safety of power plants, while photographs highlight the plight of nuclear workers who are often poor and sometimes dependent on jobs in the nuclear industry. According to Honma Ryu, these advertisements are certainly only the tip of the iceberg. They are part of a campaign to closely monitor all information published on nuclear power, as well as the quasi-guarantee that local newspapers will limit the voice of opponents.

Furutachi Ichiro on “Hodo Station”

In a report on press freedom released in April 2016, Reporters Without Borders ranked Japan 72nd, behind Hungary and Tanzania. Six years ago, it ranked 11th. Visiting Tokyo, a United Nations rapporteur alerted the country to the growing pressures on Japanese journalists who work for private media or NHK. This is because of increasing government pressure, exacerbated by the entry into force in the past year of a law on state secrets, including nuclear related matters. A law with vague outlines threatens journalists with imprisonment for disclosing “secret” information. A sign of the times is that three television journalists known for their independence announced their resignation at the beginning of the year. Among them is Furutachi Ichiro, presenter of “Hodo Station,” which, according to Honma Ryu, was targeted by Dentsu for several years because of his critical views on nuclear power and the Abe administration. No doubt Dentsu, privileged ambassador of the largest industrial groups, will continue to play its role in the great media lockdown ongoing in Japan.

Sachie Mizohata, Translation from French and Introduction

Original French article in INA Global

Japanese translation by Uchida Tatsuru (see May 15, 2016)

Mathieu Gaulène, a freelance journalist, holds a Master’s degree in Asian studies from Sciences Po, Paris. As a specialist on Japan, he has written for INA-Global, Le Monde, Politis, Slate.fr, and other publications. He has covered topics ranging from Japanese politics, popular culture, to new technologies. He is the author of the book Le nucléaire en Asie. Fukushima, et après ? (Éditions Philippe Picquier, 2016).

Sachie Mizohata is a Luxembourg-based translator. Her article related to media and nuclear power is http://apjjf.org/2011/9/39/Sachie-MIZOHATA/3648/article.html Her sites are as follows: here and here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Does the Advertising Giant Dentsu Pull the Strings of Japan’s Media?

War Criminal Tony Blair’s “Manic Diversionary Tactics”: Is the UK’s Iraq Inquiry Set to “Savage” Tony Blair?

June 5th, 2016 by Felicity Arbuthnot

With the date of the publication of Chilcot Inquiry into the illegal invasion of Iraq just weeks away (6th July) reportedly set to “savage” former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair (1) he has made a rare return to the UK and gone in to manic diversionary tactic overdrive.

It seems no radio, television news or current affairs programme is without Blair giving his opinion on the upcoming UK referendum on whether to stay in the European Union, making near libelous comments on the current courteous, dignified, non-warmongering leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn (who was implacably against Blair’s foreign interventions.) He has waded in to the economy, Africa, faith, God and of course is cheerleading for invading Syria and reinvading Iraq.

He had been Prime Minister for a mere twenty three months when he signaled his preference for bloody interventionism. Speaking at the Chicago Economic Club on 22nd April 1999, he said:

Many of our problems have been caused by two dangerous and ruthless men – Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic … Instead of enjoying its oil wealth Iraq has been reduced to poverty, with political life stultified …” The Balkans of course was already being pulverized: “On it’s fiftieth birthday, NATO must prevail” he said. Perhaps he was facing his and the US’ worst nightmare – that with the Berlin Wall gone, the Cold War ended and European and Russian citizens rejoicing, NATO no longer had a raison d’etre. Don’t “give peace a chance.

As for Iraq’s “poverty”, prior to the paralyzing US-UK driven UN embargo imposed on Hiroshima Day 1990, Iraq’s money had been poured for thirty years into infrastructure, free high quality health services, UN Award winning free education, clean water, reliable electricity, telecommunications – near all comprehensively destroyed by a thirty four nation onslaught (17th January 1991-28th February 1991.)

Iraq was then left, unable to independently import the nation’s needs, rebuild, repair. With towering inventiveness, imagination and determination the country rose from the ashes, but beneath the surface, the infrastructure was near terminal for want of imported parts. Blair ignored both impressive achievements, the embargo’s silent infanticide, genocide and ecocide and the Billion $ rip-off which was the shameful so called UN “Oil for Food” deal.

The UN Sanctions Committee was headed by Blair’s envoy Carne Ross, who subsequently formed an organization called “Independent Diplomat”, which currently states it is working with the “moderate” head chopping, organ eating, pyromaniac Syrian “opposition” to now overthrow that country’s President.

However, Blair’s Chicago speech demonstrates how long he had been determined to back the US in the illegal overthrow of the leader of a sovereign nation. His address was just eleven months after the US had passed The Iraq Liberation Act (10th May 1998) which determined it: “… should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.” (2)

Perhaps with Chilcot’s findings looming, Blair’s duplicities might finally come home to roost, hence the frenzied diversionary tactics.

They are not going well. Michael Burleigh in an eviscerating piece in the Daily Mail headed: “Why I despise conman Blair’s grubby attempt to spin away Chilcot truths” writes: “Chilcot will be a defining moment in our recent history … It will show how the art of lying has become central to the British way of government – with ‘facts’ proving malleable and the Civil Service degraded into partisanship.”

Having dragged: “the perma-tanned multi-millionaire become pantomime villain” through the depths of media mud he concludes: “But the lessons to be learned from Iraq must include how a preachy conman debased our entire system of government.”

Also in the Mail, Quentin Letts (“Enter Saint Tony, as tanned as the top of an egg flan…and looking every one of his 63 years …”) refers to an event at which Blair was speaking and from which Letts and other journalists were barred: “ By the way, yesterday’s event was co-organised by Mr Blair’s ‘Faith Foundation’ which seeks to promote ‘stable societies’.

And if they won’t make themselves stable we’ll jolly well have to drop bombs and parachutists on them and invade them with tanks and battalions of Western troops and basically kill them. All. That’ll calm them down, just you see.

Blair was also: “ … shrivelled by scandals and pointlessness …”

However: “Mr Blair hinted that he may collaborate with Sir John Major and Gordon Brown on a joint pro-Brussels platform. There was a place for former Prime Ministers, he insisted.

Did he mean The Hague?”

Chris Nineham writing in The Guardian has reminded that: “The parody of Blair as US poodle diminishes his role in history. He chafed at Bill Clinton’s hesitancy to bomb Serbia in 1999 and secretly reassured the Bush administration that it would not be alone in the illegal pursuit of regime change in Iraq” in April 2002.

It should be an encouragement to progressives that Blair’s combination of aggression overseas, pro-market policies at home and deception in general has made him a pariah.

Nineham’s reference to the commitment to Bush re Iraq related to the memo by Colin Powell to George W. Bush briefing him ahead of Blair’s visit to Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch, 5-7th April 2002. A paragraph confirms (3) that: “On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary. He is convinced on two points: that the threat is real; and success against Saddam will yield more regional success …”

The “threat” of course was a fantasy followed up by a pack of lies and the result has been a “regional” bloodbath.

It is set to get worse for Blair. On 6th June a drama, “Reg”, is to be shown on BBC 2, the real life story of Reg Keys and his wife Sally whose soldier son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys (20) was killed in Iraq with five colleagues.

In 2005 Reg Keys, a paramedic and paramedic trainer, ran against Tony Blair in his Sedgefield, Co Durham constituency in the general election with the aim of drawing attention to Blair’s Iraq duplicities. On election night with all the candidates gathered after the count, which of course Blair won, Keys gave a withering, blistering speech reducing the winner and his wife to standing white faced, clench lipped and frozen. As the candidates finally parted Blair refused to shake Keys’ hand. Truth clearly hurts.

Reg’s wife Sally never recovered from the loss of Tom and died in 2011, aged fifty seven. Their agony mirrors the losses of other families from a war built on untruths in the UK and unendingly, ongoing, in Iraq.

Anna Maxwell Martin who plays Sally Keys has commented: “I think this absolutely hammers home the personal nature for some people and I hope it really highlights Tony Blair to be the gruesome crook that he is.”

Actor Tim Roth plays Reg Keys and said that he hopes the drama forces Blair to apologise and: “ I’ve always felt Blair should be hauled off in handcuffs and put in Wormwood Scrubs (prison). I think he’s profited from the death of Reg’s son and the Iraq war. I have nothing but contempt for him.”

In September former MP George Galloway is to screen a documentary. It is called “The Killings of Tony Blair.”

Meanwhile The Iraq Families Action Group intend to use the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry to sue Tony Blair, his former Ministers and Generals, on behalf of the 179 British soldiers killed. They intend to seek unlimited damages.

The former leader of the Scottish National Party, MP Alex Salmond seems set to revive a group of politicians formed with a view to taking legal action against Blair back in 2004.

Salmond has said that he said he believed the: “best route would be to use the International Criminal Court because the Prosecutor is able to initiate action on his or her own behalf on presentation of a body of evidence, which Chilcot would provide.” However, he says he is open to any legal avenue which could have the desired outcome.

Meanwhile, Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, interviewed on BBC’s Newsnight stated: “We went into a war that was catastrophic, that was illegal, that cost us a lot of money, that lost a lot of lives, and the consequences are still played out with migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, refugees all over the region.”

Asked if he would like to see Blair put on trial he replied: “I want to see all those that committed war crimes tried for it, and those that made the decisions that went with it.”

Yet total denial seems to have again struck the former Prime Minister so central to tragedies beyond comprehension, which have affected millions between the embargo, war and the murderous chaos of the aftermath spread far and wide.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andre Marr Show on Sunday 29th May he intimated that if the Inquiry finds he committed to the invasion before he told Parliament and the public, he might refuse to accept the verdict. He has surely not forgotten his commitment mentioned in General Colin Powell’s early 2002 communication with George Bush, quoted above?

Ironically, the Centre for Religion and Geopolitics founded by Tony Blair has just published its latest Report on extremism (no reflection of course, that it does not get much more extreme than enjoining “a Crusade” as declared by George W. Bush.)

The Centre writes: “Our data shows that over the past three months, the same countries repeatedly suffered high levels of extremism.” With no  hint of irony they include Iraq and Afghanistan in which Blair’s Britain was integral to attacking and destabilizing. Then Syria, Yemen, Pakistan in which the US and UK have meddled, murdered, damaged and disrupted.

In Libya “ISIS has continued to gain strength”, they note. The same Libya whose leader Blair kissed (a Judas kiss if ever there was one) who resultantly disarmed, was welcomed back in to the “community of nations” and was destroyed by that same “community.”

It can only be hoped that Chilcot throws the book at this despicable human being and all involved in Iraq’s tragedy. Whatever the findings it could never be sufficient.

Notes

1.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-uks-iraq-inquiry-set-to-savage-tony-blair/5527169

2.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4655

3.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277402/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-Blair-s-deal-blood-George-Bush-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War Criminal Tony Blair’s “Manic Diversionary Tactics”: Is the UK’s Iraq Inquiry Set to “Savage” Tony Blair?

Peak Oil and Climate Collapse: Can Society Make the Transition in Time?

June 5th, 2016 by Michael Welch

As the independent investigative journalist Dahr Jamail has detailed in his regular climate dispatch for Truthout, there are signs that excessive amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are wreaking havoc on the globe’s atmospheric and ocean systems.

From the Wildfires raging near Fort McMurray in Alberta, to the increasing acidification of the oceans which cover 70% of the planet, to the mass die-off of species, to rising sea levels, to record shattering heat persisting for three months straight in early 2016 coming on the heels of record high global temperatures persisting for the last sixteen years, it is clear that Earth’s ecological systems are under assault.[1][2]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:15)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Then there is the question of peak oil and gas.

As energy writer Richard Heinberg argued in a previous installment of the Global Research News Hour, the discovery of cheap accessible oil and natural gas was akin to ‘winning the energy lottery.’ He indicated then that all aspects of life were altered as a result of incorporating this extremely potent energy source into our economic system. Agriculture, petro-chemicals, plastics synthetics, consumerism, the techno-boom and the resulting six-fold increase in the human population all resulted from the oil century.

There are credible signs that conventional oil production peaked around 2005. Unconventional supplies such as Alberta tar sands oil (bitumen) and shale oil (kerogen) have unexpectedly resulted in the current glut on the market and given the oil age a new lease on life. However, extraction methods for these substances have proven to be extremely harmful to the environment. In any case, these supplies are finite and will eventually run out.

Given the realities of peak oil and climate change, our high tech civilization would seem to be an energy castle, built on a foundation of fossil fuel sand.

Transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy, sooner or later, is inevitable. The question is how could that be achieved in time to address the hazards on the horizon? Is it feasible? How could that be pursued in a meaningful way? What political and other obstacles need to be overcome to get to a truly renewable economy?

The Global Research News Hour focuses this week on how to respond to the modern day energy dilemma with three guests. Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon institute and Gordon Laxer, founder and former director of the University of Alberta-based Parkland institute take up the bulk of the show discussing the role of trade agreements in undermining energy security, US imperialism as part of the problem, obstructionism from elites, and the compromises that will be necessary to achieve a sustainable future.

With a less optimistic take is returning guest Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson, who explains in the final segment of the program why near-term human extinction due to runaway global warming is not only likely but inevitable, why he feels the renewable economy is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” proposition, and yet continues to promote action rather than resignation as a strategy moving ahead.

Richard Heinberg is a Senior Fellow with the Post-Carbon Institute. He is a journalist, and author of thirteen books including The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2003, New Society Publishers), Afterburn: Society Beyond Fossil Fuels (2015, New Society Publishers) and his most recent Our Renewable Future: Laying the Path for One Hundred Percent Clean Energy  co-authored by David Fridley (2016, Island Press). Heinberg is considered one of the world’s leading educators on the subject of Peak Oil, the opposite side of the fossil fuel energy coin.

 Gordon Laxer is a political economist and the former head and founding director of the Parkland Institute based at the University of Alberta where he is Professor Emeritus. He is widely published in newspapers and magazines and the author of several books including Open for Business: The Roots of Foreign Ownership in Canada(1989, Oxford University Press), and his most recent After the Sands: Energy and Ecological Security for Canadians (Douglas & Mcintyre.)

Guy McPherson is a Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. He has spent years assembling and collating available peer-reviewed research on climate. He hosts the Nature Bats Last website, and is host of the Nature Bats Last radio program on the Progressive Radio Network.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:15)

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.

Notes:

1) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36133-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-concentration-has-passed-the-point-of-no-return

2) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35796-temperatures-in-2016-are-already-near-cop21-limit

Russia Fiddles While Syria Burns. No Peace Partner in Washington

June 5th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. Putin’s strategic intervention in Syria last September was a bold, vital step. He deserves credit and praise for taking it.

Things changed dramatically on the ground. Reinvigorated government forces retook large swaths of earlier lost territory, freeing them from the scourge of US-sponsored terrorism.

At the same time, Russia’s all-out efforts for ceasefire and conflict resolution peace talks failed. On the one hand, the alternative is endless war. On the other, the only language America understands is force.

Moscow’s genuine diplomatic efforts can’t succeed because it has no peace partner in Washington – under Obama or whoever succeeds him.

It’s time to accept reality and act boldly, assertively and unilaterally against all terrorist groups in Syria rejecting ceasefire, Moscow following through on its earlier commitment, repeated as recently as late May and early June – so far not implemented.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry and General Staff Main Operational Directorate head General Sergei Rudskoy issued similar statements in March, saying unilateral airstrikes will target ceasefire violators – at the same time accusing Washington of failing to work cooperatively to implement Security Council 2254 provisions.

They call for ceasefire and diplomatic conflict resolution. Russia genuinely pursues both objectives. America obstructs them.

Endless fighting rages. Washington wants war, not peace, regime change called political transition. Geneva I, II and III failed. Nothing suggests better prospects ahead.

Russia’s failure to follow through on its commitment gave ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and other terrorist groups time to regroup, rearm and replenish their ranks – with help from Washington, NATO (notably Turkey), Israel, Saudi Arabia and other regional rogue states.

Russia’s repeated calls for Washington to work cooperatively against terrorism in Syria remain unanswered.

On Saturday, Sergey Lavrov again expressed concern about US delaying tactics. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said he and John Kerry continue discussing the situation on the ground without agreement, explaining:

…Lavrov has expressed concern (about US) attempts to delay resuming political talks for various artificial reasons, which was seen clearly during the UN Security Council briefing on Syria on June 3.

On June 5, Tass reported terrorist shelling of Syrian cities and towns in the last 24 hours alone killed over 270 civilians, injuring hundreds more.

The Russian Coordination Center said terrorist groups breached cessation of hostilities in the last 24 hours 10 times in Aleppo and Damascus – 626 times since ceasefire took effect at midnight last February 26.

Washington wants its terrorist foot soldiers protected, outrageously telling Russia to stop attacking Jabhat al-Nusra fighters, wanting heroic efforts by government forces obstructed and defeated.

The Obama administration continues providing terrorists with arms and other material support. Reports indicate increasing Russian airstrikes. There’s more.

According to Al Monitor, “the Russians this week disembarked ground forces and paratroopers in the port of Tartus to support more than 3,000 Russian volunteers dispatched to the region in the past few weeks, in a bid to revive coordination with the Syrian army.”

“This represents yet another additional indication that a wide-ranging operation is being prepared” – likely in Raqqa and Aleppo provinces.

According to Syrian sources, Russia’s joint command staff, handling aerial operations, returned to Khmeimim air base in likely preparation for new combat operations.

It’s time to deal with Washington and its rogue allies in the only language they understand – by resuming large-scale aerial strikes like earlier, intensifying them, regaining the offensive decisively, not letting up, smashing all terrorist elements failing to observe ceasefire.

Liberating Syria depends on it. Fiddling with Washington won’t end well.

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.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia Fiddles While Syria Burns. No Peace Partner in Washington

Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton: Who’s the Fascist?

June 5th, 2016 by Margaret Kimberley

The U.S. public loves fascists; they elect them, constantly. Donald Trump, who “says he would raise the minimum wage and stop the endless efforts at regime change,” is called a fascist by some.  But Hillary Clinton “is happy to bomb Libya or Syria or any other country,” and played a major role in mass Black incarceration. Barack Obama is the war-maker and deporter-in-chief. “All of the major party candidates fit the F word description in some way.”

“No one comes into office with any intention of undoing America’s leadership as the world’s worst jailer.”

Donald Trump is the ill spoken, boorish, graceless version of every American president in modern history. He differs from them only in his unconcealed appeals to white nationalism. But Democrats aren’t much better. They pretend to work on behalf of human, civil and economic rights but those claims are lies. They are meant to hide their partnerships with corporate America, very wealthy individuals and the worldwide imperialist project.

If Trump is a fascist then he will fit in nicely with the pantheon of horrific men we are told to respect and venerate. Barack Obama charges and convicts whistle blowers with the little used espionage act from the era of Woodrow Wilson. He claims and has exercised an invented right to kill Americans. His predecessor invaded and occupied Iraq but he continues the dirty deed there and in Afghanistan. He tries to fool the public by assassinating “al Qaeda number two,” over and over again. Al Qaeda certainly doesn’t lack for plan B staffers.

Bush the younger cut tax rates for rich people but Obama didn’t change that. Under the guise of compromising with intransigent Republicans he did the same thing. When he and the Democrats controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010 they raised the minimum wage a paltry 70 cents.

Conversely, Donald Trump says he would raise the minimum wage and says he would stop the endless efforts at regime change. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders have questioned that fundamental premise of American foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has already proven herself to be particularly blood thirsty. She is happy to bomb Libya or Syria or any other country. Her so-called expertise amounts to nothing more than an expansion of state sponsored terror committed by the United States.

It is a Democratic president who brought back a cold war against Russia and recklessly brought troops to the edge of that country’s borders.

Trump says he wouldn’t cut Social Security while Barack Obama famously declared that he and his 2012 Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, agreed on the need to cut this program that was once called the “third rail” of politics.

Every president since the 1980s has grown the horrific mass incarceration industry. Using wars on drugs as a pretext they have locked up 2 million people, half of whom are black. No one comes into office with any intention of undoing America’s leadership as the world’s worst jailer.

American history teaches black people to be, at the very least, wary of public officials who are beloved by red necks as much as Trump is. When Trump speaks of preventing Muslim immigration or deporting all of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in this country he is making inherently racist appeals.

That is why he is protested and rightly so. But the protesters have already missed the mark by giving a pass to equally questionable policy actions and statements coming from Democrats. It is a Democratic president who brought back a cold war against Russia and recklessly brought troops to the edge of that country’s borders. This scenario was unheard of during the worst days of the cold war and now risks nuclear confrontation. That is because George W. Bush unilaterally abrogated the missile defense treaty with Russia. Perhaps he can be called a fascist also.

The trade deals passed by American presidents with congressional connivance grow worse. There is no longer any pretense that their goal is to help corporations maximize profits and minimize everyone else’s rights. Not even members of Congress were allowed access to the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership legislation.

If a politician has the right establishment credentials and knows how to give prepared speeches he or she can get away with committing any outrage.

If Trump is protested, Obama ought to be as well. He is spending his last year in office on an imperialism tour. He goes to Hiroshima for photo opportunities with atomic bomb survivors while building more nuclear warheads than any other president. He tells endless lies about Russian “aggression” but he is the provocative head of state.

Trump should be disliked by Latinos and everyone else when he says that Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers. But Obama is the deporter in chief, sending a record number of Latino immigrants out of the country with dubious rationales, devastating them and their families.

Apparently all of the major party candidates fit the F word description in some way. Trump’s bombast and ignorance make him the easiest to pick out of the crowd but appearances are deceiving. It seems that if a politician has the right establishment credentials and knows how to give prepared speeches he or she can get away with committing any outrage.

In just the last 40 years American presidents or their allied partners in crime have killed people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Congo, Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Gaza, Kosovo, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. What do they have to do to be called fascists? Showing bad manners seems to be the only thing that sets off expressions of outrage among Americans.

There is already fascism in the White House, the Justice Department, the State Department and Congress. The only question is who will be the next person to keep that sick machinery running.

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. 

Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at:

Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton: Who’s the Fascist?

On World Environment Day: Profiting from Death, Devastation and Destruction is the Norm

June 5th, 2016 by Colin Todhunter

The scaly anteater is considered to be the most trafficked mammal on earth. Over a million of these have been taken from the wild in the past decade alone. The illegal trade in live apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, is also rife, and many other species across the planet are being trafficked. It is estimated that rhino poaching in South Africa increased by as much as 8,000% between 2007 and 2014. For every live animal illegally taken from the wild, there are many more killed during capture and transport.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Secretary-General of CITES, John Scanlon, states that the current wildlife crisis is not a natural phenomenon, but the direct result of people’s actions. He argues, “People are the cause of this serious threat to wildlife and people must be the solution, which also requires us to tackle human greed, ignorance and indifference.”

The nature of the crisis Scanlon speaks of is clear. The vast illegal trade in wildlife products is pushing whole species towards extinction, including elephants, rhinos, big cats, gorillas and sea turtles, as well as helmeted hornbills, pangolins and wild orchids.

Driven by a growing demand for illegally sourced wildlife products, the illicit trade has escalated into a global crisis. Thousands of species are internationally traded and used by people in their daily lives. The United Nations Environment Programme runs the annual World Environment Day (WED), which is celebrated each year on 5 June. The event aims to raise global awareness and sets out action to protect nature.

Angola is currently trying to rebuild its elephant population, which has been decimated by a decades-long civil war, and is hosting the 2016 WED celebrations. However, poaching in Angola is threatening the efforts to increase the number of elephants, and the government is committed to revising its penal code to bring in tougher punishments for poachers.

The illegal wildlife trade, particularly the trade in ivory and rhino horn, is a major problem across Africa. The number of elephants killed on the continent in recent years is over 20,000 a year, out of a population of around 4,20,000 to 6,50,000. According to data from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as many as 1,00,000 elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012.

The population of forest elephants in Central and West Africa declined by an estimated 60% between 2002 and 2011. Official reports show that 1,215 rhinos were poached in South Africa alone in 2014 — this translates to 1 rhino killed every 8 hours. The rapid rise in rhino poaching, from less than 20 in 2007, has been driven by the involvement of organised syndicates in the poaching and trafficking of wildlife products.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on UN agencies and various partners to provide a co-ordinated response to wildlife crime and spread the message that there should be zero tolerance for poaching. As part of a wider approach, a strategy is being developed to create greater public awareness of the issue at hand, which will hopefully lead to reduced demand for wildlife products.

As commendable as these aims are, however, on their own they will not be enough to save certain species. For instance, from 2000 to 2009, Indonesia supplied more than half of the global palm oil market at an annual expense of some 340,000 hectares of Indonesian countryside. Planned expansion could wipe out the remaining natural habitat of several endangered species.

This is a ludicrous situation considering that Brazil and Indonesia spent over 100 times more in subsidies to industries that cause deforestation than they received in international conservation aid from the UN to prevent it. The two countries gave over $40bn in subsidies to the palm oil, timber, soy, beef and biofuels sectors between 2009 and 2012, some 126 times more than the $346m they received to preserve their rain forests.

If we want to see how not to manage the world’s wildlife and natural habitats, we need look no further than India, which is now the world’s leading importer of palm oil, accounting for around 15% of the global supply. India imports over two-­thirds of its palm oil from Indonesia.

Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Then import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This was a deliberate policy that effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector (see this) and served the interests of palm oil growers and US grain and agriculture commodity company Cargill, which helped write international trade rules to secure access to the Indian market on its terms.

According to Vandana Shiva, the WTO and the TRIPS Agreement, written by Monsanto, and the Agreement on Agriculture, written by Cargill, was the beginning of a new corporate imperialism. It came as little surprise then that in 2013 India’s Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oil seeds production programme.

Indonesia leads the world in global palm oil production, but palm oil plantations have too often replaced tropical forests, leading to the killing of endangered species and the uprooting of local communities as well as contributing to the release of climate-changing gases (see this analysis). Indonesia emits more greenhouse gases than any country besides China and the US and that’s largely due to the production of palm oil.

The issue of palm oil is one example from the many that could be provided to highlight how corporate imperialism drives wildlife and habitat destruction across the globe. Whether it is in Indonesia, Latin America or elsewhere, transnational agribusiness – and the system of industrialised agriculture it promotes – fuels much of the destruction that we see.

Powerful corporations continue to regard themselves as the owners of people, the planet and the environment and as having the right – enshrined in laws and agreements they wrote – to exploit, kill and devastate for commercial gain.Without addressing the impacts and nature of corporate greed and a wholly corrupt neoliberal capitalism that privileges corporations and profit ahead of people and conservation, regardless of any success in the area of the trafficking of wild animals or plants, much of the world’s wildlife and biodiversity will remain under serious threat. They will increasingly find themselves hemmed into smaller and fewer reserves surrounded by commodity plantations, industries, urban sprawl and barren, degraded landscapes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On World Environment Day: Profiting from Death, Devastation and Destruction is the Norm

Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate

June 5th, 2016 by Diana Johnstone

On June 2, a few days before the California primary, Hillary Clinton gave up trying to compete with Bernie Sanders on domestic policy. Instead, she zeroed in on the soft target of Donald Trump’s most “bizarre rants” in order to present herself as experienced and reasonable. Evidently taking her Democratic Party nomination for granted, she is positioning herself as the perfect candidate for hawkish Republicans.

Choosing to speak in San Diego, home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, on a platform draped with 19 American flags and preceded by half an hour of military marching music, Hillary Clinton was certain of finding a friendly audience for her celebration of American “strength”, “values” and “exceptionalism”. Cheered on by a military audience, Hillary was already assuming the role to which she most ardently aspires: that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

shutterstock_329730725 (3)

Whenever Hillary speaks, one must look for the lies. The biggest lies in this speech were lies of omission. No mention of her support for the invasion of Iraq, no mention of the disaster she wrought in Libya, no mention of her contribution to pursuing endless death and destruction in the Middle East.

But she also lied in claiming partial credit for the Iran nuclear deal, which she had tended to block, and most profoundly in presenting herself as a champion of diplomacy. As Secretary of State, she blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.

Johnstone-Queen-Cover-ak800--291x450

The Washington Post reported prior to the speech that her campaign “hopes there are many more national-security-minded Republicans and independents who would vote for her, even grudgingly, rather than see Trump win the White House.”

The Washington Post noted that the state of California’s “defense industry and military bases lend a backdrop for her speech.” Indeed! Hillary Clinton is quite simply catering to the military-industrial complex, as she has been doing throughout her career.   She is catering to the arms industry, which needs to keep the American people scared of various “threats” in order to continue draining the nation’s wealth into their profitable enterprises. She needs the support of military men and women who believe in all those threats invented by intellectuals in think tanks and editorial offices.

This is the core of the “national-security-minded” electorate that Hillary is targeting. She warned that Trump would jeopardize the wonderful bipartisan foreign policy that has been keeping us great and safe for decades.

In reality, such “national-security-minded” leaders as Dick Cheney and Clinton herself have led the United States into wars that create chaos, inspire enemies and endanger everybody’s national security. Despite the geographically safe position of the United States, it is that bipartisan War Party that has created genuine threats to U.S. national security by prodding the hornets’ nest of religious fanaticism in the Middle East and provoking nuclear-armed Russia by aggressive military exercises right up to its borders.

The basis of Hillary Clinton’s world view is that notorious “American exceptionalism” which Obama has also celebrated. If we don’t rule the world, she suggested, “others will rush in to fill the vacuum”. She clearly cannot conceive of dealing respectfully with other nations. The United States, she proclaimed, is “exceptional – the last best hope on earth.”

Not all people on earth feel that way. So they must be brought to heel. In practice, this “exceptionalism” means acting above the law. It means a unipolar world policed by U.S. armed forces. In practice, Hillary’s devotion to “our allies” means fighting wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and of Saudi Arabia, whose arms purchases are indispensable for our military industrial complex. It means bombing countries and overthrowing foreign governments, from Honduras to Syria and beyond, in order to help them conform to “our values”.

Trump is groping clumsily, at times idiotically, toward a major shift in US foreign policy. He is ill-prepared for the task. If ever elected, he would have to fire the neocons and take on a whole new team of experts to educate and guide him. That would be something of a miracle.

But some of Hillary’s reproaches aimed at Trump’s “reckless, risky” foreign policy statements are not as self-evident as she assumes.  For example, his statement that he would sit down to negotiate with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Is that really such a crazy idea?

North Korea is a small country, whose leaders call themselves “communist” but who are essentially a dynasty that emerged from the resistance against Japanese invaders in World War II. Their quarrel with South Korea stemmed from the domination of Japanese collaborators in that part of the country. That is practically ancient history, and today North Korea feels threatened – and is indeed threatened – by the everlasting U.S. military presence on its borders. A small isolated country like North Korea is not a real “threat” to the world. Even with nuclear weapons. Its much-vaunted nuclear weapons are clearly meant both to defend itself from attack and as a bargaining chip.

So would it be so terrible to sit down and find out what the bargain might be? Basically, North Korean leaders would like to make a deal to lessen the U.S. threat and bring their country out of isolation. Why not discuss this, since it could lead to the end of the “North Korean threat” which is artificial anyway?

Hillary’s reaction is typical. She boasts that her solution is to build up an expensive missile defense shield in Japan and increase everybody’s military buildup in the region. As usual, she goes for the military solution, ridiculing the notion of diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton’s speech will certainly sound convincing to the “national security minded” because it is so familiar. The same as George W. Bush but delivered with much greater polish. America is good, America is great, we must remain strong to save the world. This is the road to disaster.

Hillary Clinton is the clear candidate of the War Party.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her new book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. She can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate

Obama Tries To Ram His TTIP Down Europeans’ Throats, “For the Benefit of Billionaires”

June 5th, 2016 by Eric Zuesse

Like the foie gras producer ramming food down ducks’ throats in order to create diseased super-fatty livers that some humans find acceptable to eat, Barack Obama (via his friend and trade-negotiator Michael Froman) is trying to ram dictatorship down Europeans’ throats, for the benefit of billionaires. And, like the sweet words of the foie-grass lobbyists who say it’s all just the ‘free market’ at work, Obama’s commercial-treaties salesman is saying it’s all being done in order to support ‘free trade’.

Thus, on May 31st, a big promoter of ‘free trade’, Britain’sEconomist, headlined “Europe and US in race to keep TTIP on track”, and ‘reported’ (i.e., stenographically transmitted) the U.S. President’s propaganda; they provided to Mr. Froman their (unjustifiably respected) platform, as an unpaid ad (‘news’ story) for the Obama Administration’s work-product, this treaty: “Speaking in Stockholm on a European tour to push TTIP, Michael Froman, US President Barack Obama’s trade tsar, warned that there was no ‘Plan B’ if talks were not concluded this year. ‘We either work together to help set the rules of the world or we leave that role to others.’” In other words: Obama, via Froman, via this freebie publicity provided by the Economist, is telling the Economist’s readers, that the way to advance free trade is by imposing the rules that govern it, so as to supply advantage to the people who impose the rules and sign Obama’s document, and so as thereby to disadvantage everybody else — all people who are outside the blessed self-selected closed circle of power-holders.

 

Naturally, being good propagandists, the Economist provides no real counter-argument to that (such as by pointing out that Obama is actually trying to replace “the rules of the world” that have already become established during decades by the far less partial World Trade Organization or WTO — replace those global rules by the discriminatory treaty-based trading-blocs rules that he wants in order for international corporations to be placed directly into the driver’s seat), but instead the Economist continues immediately with this caricature of such:

TTIP’s supporters have also been blindsided by increasing opposition to trade deals in the US, where Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has built his campaign around an antitrade message and Democrat Hillary Clinton, facing a challenge from the left, has abandoned her support for a similar Pacific trade pact.

In other words, according to the Economist: the domestic opposition to Obama’s trade-deals is comprised of two categories: of ‘antitrade’ populists, and of leftist yahoos who don’t know that Marxism is dead and ended ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 — both categories of yahoos are simply behind-the-times, according to theEconomist. Pity those non-subscribers to mega-corporate propaganda such as this.

Then, this Economist ‘news’ ‘report’ (a.k.a.: propaganda) continues:

With the clock running out on Mr Obama’s presidency, officials on both sides now believe that the window is closing for a deal to be reached and approved in legislatures in Europe and the US before the end of the year. EU officials stress that they want to agree a working text by July.

A failure to complete the agreement before a change in US administration could condemn the pact to years of drift.

Get it done now, is the propaganda message. But, the intelligent reader will still be asking: should it be done at all? Viewed in narrowly economic terms alone, the three independently done (as opposed to mega-corporate funded) studies indicate that the major stockholders in international corporations (especially ones that are based in the U.S.) would benefit from these deals, at the expense of everyone else and especially at the expense of consumers, and of employees. However, that’s only the economics of it. More broadly, what Obama’s treaties will do if they become passed into law is to achieve internationally the dream of fascists ever since the time of Mussolini: to transfer sovereignty away from the public in a democracy, to, instead, as Mussolini himself sometimes called his fascist ideology, “corporationism,” which he defined as:

The corporation plays on the economic terrain just as the Grand Council and the militia play on the political terrain. Corporationism is disciplined economy, and from that comes control, because one cannot imagine a discipline without a director. Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. 

Earlier, he had said (and even legislated), tellingly:

Labor in all forms, intellectual, technical and manual, is a social duty. In this sense, and in this sense only, is it protected by the State. From the national point of view all production is a unit; its objects are unitary and can be defined as the wellbeing of the producers and the development of national strength.

He didn’t mention there “the wellbeing of the workers,” nor “the wellbeing of consumers,” because his ideology wasn’t concerned about those matters. He even asserted that labor “is a social duty. In this sense, and in this sense only, is it protected by the State,” so that workers’ rights have no protection in fascism. Only workers’duties do. “National strength” was his goal, just as it is Barack Obama’s, and they don’t believe that workers’ rights are part of this. That’s why it’s ignored in Obama’s proposed treaties.

“National strength” is, of course, largely a military phenomenon. Here is Obama speaking on 28 May 2014 to graduating cadets at America’s academy for its future military leaders, West Point:

Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago. It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. …

America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership.

This was a statement that America’s economic competitors are to be addressed not only by economic means (such as his economic sanctions against Russia) but also by military means, and that these cadets are therefore to think of their nation’s economic competitors as additionally being also America’s enemies. He even said there that all nations except the U.S. are dispensable; and his precise words to assert this type of American exceptionalism were that “the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” Consequently, for example, Russia and China (like any other enemy)are ‘dispensable’ (because only one is not: America).

Of course, some fascist leaders, such as Francisco Franco, haven’t similarly held their nation to be the only ‘indispensable’ nation. Not all fascist leaders do, but Adolf Hitler certainly did believe that his was, and he too was a fascist, though not a member of Mussolini’s party, the Fascist Party, because Hitler had his own fascist party, the Nazis. Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, which has existed ever since the beginning of the American republic. Fascism didn’t even exist back then. Furthermore, U.S. President FDR was passionately anti-fascist, and he led the Democratic Party during the time of Mussolini and Hitler, and went to war against them. However, there is evidence that Obama is a fascist in the sense that Mussolini initiated as not merely the Fascist Party, but more germane here, in the more basic sense, as the fascist ideology.

For example, Michael Froman has insisted that a country which systematically and regularly ignores whenever a labor union organizer gets murdered, isn’t therefore disqualified from being included in trade agreements such as the U.S. is now proposing. Obama, quite evidently (from his proposed trade treaties) feels that it’s quite okay for American workers to be competing against workers in foreign countries where labor union organizers are like free-fire-zone targets for corporations that want them to be (mysteriously) eliminated.

Of course, Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t say any such thing; he’s far more genteel than was Mussolini. But Obama’s actions, and the people whom he appoints to run the federal offices for him and who carry out his policies (such as Froman), show the real person, not merely the verbal front, and his agents make quite clear that, where the ideological rubber actually hits the policy highway, Barack Obama is, in fact, a classic fascist, in the sense that the first fascist leader, Mussolini, was. Obama’s concept of ‘free trade’ is the fascist version, not the democratic one.

I previously noted that,

Mussolini … had learned his fascism from the economist Vilfredo Pareto, whose teachings had inspired the young Mussolini. 

As Pareto himself said, 1 September 1897, in his essay “The New Theories of Economics”: “Were I of the opinion that a certain book would contribute more than any other to establish free trade in the world at large I would not hesitate an instant to give myself up heart and soul to the study of this particular work, putting aside for the time all study of pure science.” But what the international corporations call “free trade” isn’t quite the same thing that supporters of democracy would mean by that phrase.

The same article also documented extensively that Pareto specifically condemned “the empty words of meaning of the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man,” and that he rejected equality of rights. He set forth the ideology upon the basis of which (for example) Michael Froman might ‘justify’ American workers competing against ones in countries where labor union organizers can be murdered with impunity: only the corporation’s owners should have the right to collective bargaining (via their management, lobbyists, etc.). Pareto was very big on the rights of owners, but that’s all.

Barack Obama’s ‘free trade’ is entirely in keeping with fascism. It’s simply extending that, globally, and excluding from the mega-trading-blocs that he is creating, the BRICS nations (now just the RICS nations, because of the successful coup in Brazil). This is in accord with his having told West Point cadets that they might be called upon by their nation to treat those nations where “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” as being America’s enemies, to be killed or captured — conquered. Perhaps this is to be the new gunboat diplomacy.

Irrespective of Obama’s rhetoric, which is often in accord with the tradition of America’s Founders, his proposed trade treaties are in blatant violation even of the U.S. Constitution itself, as well as of the very clearly expressed intentions of the chief individuals who drafted it and who led this nation during its earliest years.

All knowledgeable people are aware that Obama is pushing not only for a locked-in American domination of the world, but for U.S. corporate dictatorship. As I previously headlined, “UN Lawyer Calls TTP & TTIP ‘a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots’.” But, what the UN’s legal expert on these matters has to say about them, doesn’t receive nearly as much freebie promotion as is provided to even just one of the U.S. White House’s fascist puff-pieces; so, the UN’s expert gets drowned out by the fascist cacophony.

Consequently, though the publics both in the U.S. and EU are opposed to these ‘free trade’ treaties (notwithstanding all the PR for them), the governments can just go ahead and sign them. This is Western ‘democracy’. The publics are the ducks, and the people who control things need to fatten up our livers a bit more, regardless of what we think. Obama and his allies are preparing this meal, and the people who paid them to do it are hungry, and are demanding to be served this feast, ASAP. The ducks (despite all the pretty sounds about how nutritious this food will be) might squawk about it, but, after all, the ducks don’t own the farm, and the people who do are the actual decision-makers — in accord with what Mussolini and his teacher Pareto said should be the case.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Tries To Ram His TTIP Down Europeans’ Throats, “For the Benefit of Billionaires”

9/11′s Conspiracy Trio Falling Apart

June 5th, 2016 by Wayne Madsen

The three conspirators—American neocons, Saudi Arabia, and Israel—that successfully pulled off the crime of the 21st century, namely the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, are infighting to the point that the layers of secrecy surrounding the 9/11 attacks are beginning to wither away.

The weakest link in the troika of conspirators is Saudi Arabia, the country that provided the manpower, finances, and hijacker personnel for the cover story—”Al Qaeda did it”—for 9/11. Stung by U.S. congressional moves to allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia and calls for the Obama administration to release 28 classified pages in the joint Congressional Inquiry on 9/11 intelligence failures to the public, the Saudi government is now pushing the story that the U.S. government was responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attack.

A Saudi legal scholar, Katib al Shammari, writing in the London-based “Al Hayat” newspaper and believed to be representing the view of the Saudi government, stated: “September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos agree unanimously that what happened in the Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings . . . Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing only gave the green light for the detonation—they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. This can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.’”

Alarmed by the willingness of its regional ally Saudi Arabia to question the official version of 9/11, Israel weighed in with New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer to place a “poison pill” in the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) bill that cleared the Senate in a unanimous vote. The bill would allow the families of the victims of foreign government-sponsored terrorism to sue the governments involved for damages. The law, which President Obama indicated he would veto, would lift “sovereign immunity” on countries like Saudi Arabia, thus making them liable for civil law suits. Schumer placed an amendment inside the JASTA bill that would allow Saudi Arabia to avoid law suits so long as the U.S. State and Justice Departments certified to the trial judge hearing any JASTA case that the two departments were making good faith efforts with the defendant country to resolve any issues bilaterally. Schumer’s amendment—the Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations—would also allow the State and Justice Departments to seek from the court continual 180-day stays, thus killing any lawsuits indefinitely.

Israel is also concerned that it, too, could face lawsuits under the provisions of JASTA. WMR has previously reported that some of the footnotes in the classified 28 pages provide links that lead to Israeli involvement in 9/11. It is noteworthy that the Saudis are blaming the George W. Bush administration for carrying out 9/11 and are leaving Israel out of the equation. Schumer’s actions on behalf of the Saudis are a clear indication that the Saudi-Israeli alliance remains intact.

Coupled with House Speaker Paul Ryan’s decision, after his recent trip to Saudi Arabia, to not allow JASTA to come before a full House vote and Obama’s promise to veto the bill, it is all but dead. Meanwhile, Congress has been inundated with Saudi lobbyists who now appear to have been successful in killing off JASTA. However, the damage to the troika of conspirators may have already been done.

A Saudi government-linked legal scholar is now on record that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Schumer, a virtual agent for the government of Israel, has killed JASTA to protect two of the conspirators—Israel and Saudi Arabia. That leaves only the U.S. neoconservatives who were involved in facilitating 9/11 without protection. And with Donald Trump already giving muted signals that 9/11 was an inside job, the neocons have only Hillary Clinton to provide them protection. If Trump wins the White House, the neocons will be left as the exposed third leg of the 9/11 troika.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11′s Conspiracy Trio Falling Apart

Six Questions for Monsanto

June 5th, 2016 by Katherine Paul

Monsanto may not be the largest company in the world. Or the worst. But the St. Louis, Mo. biotech giant has become the poster child for all that’s wrong with our industrial food and farming system.

With 21,000 employees in 66 countries and $15 billion in revenue, Monsanto is a biotech industry heavyweight. The St. Louis, Mo.-based monopolizer of seeds is the poster child for an industry that is the source of at least one-third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and is largely responsible for the depletion of soil, water and biodiversity. Not to mention the company’s marginalization—and sometimes terrorization—of millions of small farmers.

Since the early 20th century, Monsanto has marketed highly toxic products that have contaminated the environment and permanently sickened or killed thousands of people around the world. The most toxic of its products include:

• PCBs: one of the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which affect human and animal fertility

• 2,4,5 T (2,4-D): a component of Agent Orange containing dioxin which was used by the US military during the Vietnam war and continues to be a major cause of birth defects and cancers

• Lasso: an herbicide now banned in Europe

• Roundup: the most widely used herbicide in the world, cause of one of the biggest health and environmental tragedies in modern history. This highly toxic weed killer, sprayed on GMO crops including soybeans, corn and rapeseed for animal feed or for the production of biofuels, was recently classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

In a rare exception, Monsanto was recently ordered to pay $46.5 million to compensate victims of its PCB poisoning. Sometimes the company settles out of court, to avoid having to admit to any “wrongdoing.”

But for the most part, thanks to the multinational’s powerful influence over U.S. politicians, Monsanto has been able to poison with impunity.

It’s time for the citizens of the world to fight back. On October 15-16, in The Hague, Netherlands—the International City of Peace and Justice—a panel of distinguished international judges will hear testimony from witnesses, represented by legitimate lawyers, who have been harmed by Monsanto.

In their preparation for the citizens’ tribunal, and during witness testimony, the judges will consider six questions that are relevant not just in relation to Monsanto, but to all companies involved in shaping the future of agriculture. The six questions are:

1. Right to a healthy environment: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as recognized in international human rights law (Res. 25/21 of the Human Rights Council, of 15 April 2014), taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

2. Right to food: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to food, as recognized in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in Articles 24.2(c) and (e) and 27.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in Articles 25(f) and 28.1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

3. Right to health: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the right of child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized by Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 201

4. Freedom of expression and academic research: Did the firm Monsanto violate the freedom indispensable for scientific research, as guaranteed by Article 15(3) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the freedoms of thought and expression guaranteed in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

5. Complicity in war crimes: Is the firm Monsanto complicit in the commission of a war crime, as defined in Article 8(2) of the International Criminal Court, by providing materials to the United States Army in the context of operation “Ranch Hand” launched in Viet Nam in 1962?

6. Ecocide: Could the past and present activities of Monsanto constitute a crime of ecocide, understood as causing serious damage or destroying the environment, so as to significantly and durably alter the global commons or ecosystem services upon which certain human groups rely?

The citizens’ tribunal judges will not have the power to adopt binding decisions. But they will issue opinions which will provide victims and their legal counsel the arguments and legal grounds for further lawsuits against Monsanto within their national jurisdictions.

Throughout history, citizens’ tribunals have been an effective tool for highlighting the need to change international law so that victims of transnational companies have a means to legal redress. They are most successful when they are able to attract media attention, and are endorsed and supported by millions of citizens, throughout the world.

If you would like to endorse the International Monsanto Tribunal and follow its progress,sign on here. (Organizations can also sign on, here.)

To submit witness testimony, email claims (at) Monsanto-tribunal.org. You can also support the tribunal financially.

More on the International Monsanto Tribunal.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Six Questions for Monsanto

Megacity Malaise: Neoliberalism, Public Services and Labour in Toronto

June 5th, 2016 by Carlo Fanelli

City Manager Peter Wallace recently released a report on The City of Toronto’s Long-term Financial Direction. The analysis is the latest to reinforce what many earlier studies have long been arguing: that the city of Toronto does not have a spending crisis, but a revenue crisis. It found that “cost containment” measures have produced some $300-million in savings since 2010, but that this has done little to address the structural deficit at the root of the city’s financial challenges. The report notes that, consistent with the austerity approaches adopted by the governments of Ontario and Canada, city government is less expensive today than it was six years ago: some $165 or 3.8 per cent less per resident (in 2016 dollars). And yet, despite austerity targets totaling some 16 per cent over six years, and the elimination of 1,374 positions, the City has been unable to stop, let alone reverse, the growing revenue crisis that has been a hallmark of urban governance.

Wallace’s report also found that when adjusted for price inflation property taxes have actually fallen 4.8 per cent since 2010, the lowest of any major city in Ontario. At the same time, TTC fares have risen more than 17 per cent, recreational programs and permitting are up 9 per cent, while waste, water and parking have jumped 24 per cent. The practice of deferring capital expenses has also continued apace and is now conservatively estimated to leave the city $1-billion short per year of its needs by 2021. Should any number of uncertain revenue streams dry up, such as the land transfer tax which is up 167 per cent, this could significantly raise the revenue gap. Other pressures include: funding requirements for the TTC and Toronto Community Housing, annualized costs related to earlier capital and operating commitments, addressing prior year deferrals of employee benefit liabilities, and adjustments in response to the loss of the Toronto Pooling Compensation grant from the Ontario government, let alone council promises to implement its poverty reduction strategy, clamp down on runaway police budgets, and address the inadequacy of social assistance. As Wallace makes clear: “operating expenses are not simply government spending for its own sake – they are investments of vital public resources by Council toward a broader public good. Similarly, capital investments address issues around livability, congestion and public space in our dynamic and increasingly dense and complex city.”

As the analysis argues, there are no quick solutions or shortcuts to be found: annual surpluses are falling and an inadequate capital finance strategy, reserve funds are already at historically low levels compared to other jurisdictions and, although funding from other orders of government are important and necessary, they cannot replace long-term gaps in operational funding or fully offset unmet capital needs. And, even though, the highly uneven pattern of settlements with City workers has been falling below the rate of inflation, expenses tend to climb moderately over time. As Wallace concludes in no uncertain terms, the “circumstances of the recent past are unlikely to continue and, at the very least, cannot form the basis for responsible future fiscal planning.” Indeed, “It is no longer appropriate or feasible to defer difficult financial decisions to future years. The time has come for a direct conversation concerning the City’s finances.”

Breaking the cycle of permanent austerity and retrenchment that has characterized the last three decades of urban neoliberalism in Ontario requires challenging the continued reliance on tax cuts as a cure for nearly all of society’s social ills, as well as an alternative vision of municipal governance that rejects the market-based remaking of urban life. In addition to expanded revenue transfers from federal and provincial governments, a variety of independent revenue tools are needed if municipalities are going to become fiscally autonomous governance units. In an attempt to address the municipal malaise, mainstream approaches have tended to focus on increasing the scope of market imperatives through a continued ideological and political assault against public services and public sector workers (cfib 2013; University of Toronto Mowat Centre–kpmg 2009). At the same time, business and development groups continue to influence municipal councils through lobbying, local business associations and bankrolling local campaigns for office. These much-recycled approaches, however, rather than addressing municipalities’ structural constraints, reinforce their worst effects. Substantively addressing the revenue crisis that currently besieges municipalities, then, requires an alternative approach rooted in social equity, inclusiveness and justice.

Overcoming the Myth of Fiscal Crisis

Megacity Malaise.

The discourse of fiscal crisis is part fact and part fiction. But it is important to separate its economic realities from political pretexts. Because Ontario municipalities are effectively barred by provincial legislation from running annual deficits, many municipalities are on firmer fiscal ground than their provincial and federal counterparts, as is evidenced by balanced operating budgets, manageable levels of borrowing, low debt overhangs and strong credit ratings. While there is much variability across Ontario municipalities, Slack, Tassonyi and Grad (2014) argue that Ontario’s thirty largest municipalities have been fiscally prudent and conservative over the period from 2000 to 2011, thus are efficiently managed and generally well run. They also note a growing disparity between older industrial city–regions (Niagara Falls, Hamilton, Windsor) and northern municipalities (Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie) on the one hand, and GTA municipalities (Vaughan, Mississauga, Oakville) on the other, in their ability to raise revenues, their varied dependencies on provincial–federal transfers, pressures on infrastructure and demands for social services. While the former are often dealing with an older and declining population, weak economic growth and, in some cases, harsher climates and geographic remoteness, the latter are growing in population, more economically robust and experiencing a construction boom, thus broadening the property tax base. Hence, there is an unevenness in the Ontario urban and regional political economy.

Two of the foremost authorities on municipal finances, Enid Slack and Andre Cote (2014), have argued that Toronto does not have a spending problem, but rather a revenue problem. Their research demonstrates that, despite the perception that spending has been rapidly growing, in reality expenditures per household are roughly equivalent to what they were in 2000, when adjusted for inflation and population growth. However, there have been some important changes in the allocation of expenditures: while transportation costs grew as a share of operating spending from 21 to 28 per cent, and police and fire services have remained constant at 16 per cent, social and family services – including social assistance, childcare and seniors’ programs – declined from 27 to 20 per cent as a share of total spending. This is equal to more than a 25 per cent real cut in social and family services (Slack and Cote 2014: 3).

Much like the Miller-era Independent Fiscal Review Panel and Ford-era Core Services Review, Slack and her colleagues’ work confirms that there are few, if any, remaining efficiencies to be found without lowering services levels or asset sell offs. Property taxes are a very visible and therefore particularly contentious tax as the impression persists that rates have been rising rapidly. Although property taxes account for some 40 per cent of the City’s revenue, with provincial and federal transfers worth some 20 per cent, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, Toronto’s property tax revenues per household have actually fallen by nearly 15 per cent between 2001 and 2012, and are amongst the lowest in the GTA. Commercial, industrial and multi-residential taxes are also on their way down and tax increases for these groups have been limited to one-third of residential tax increases. After more than a decade of comparatively low development charges across the GTA, Toronto development charges were finally increased in 2013 in order to account for the rising costs of providing infrastructure for new residential developments (Slack and Cote 2014: 10–14). However, while development charges assist in supporting new infrastructure they do not support long-term operations, maintenance and replacement. Also, the assessed property tax is unlikely to generate enough to cover the costs. As a consequence, the burden of paying for aging infrastructure is shifted from both the private to public sector and from business to workers.

In light of Toronto’s construction boom, which some are warning appears to be vastly overvalued (McMahon 2014), the Land Transfer Tax rose from $150-million in 2009 to $350-million in 2013. The combined value of the City’s assets total nearly $70-billion, excluding land and parkland values. This includes everything from water and wastewater systems, transportation infrastructure, public transit, city buildings, facilities, fleet and public housing. However, pressures to sell off these assets are mounting as a result of the financial inability to maintain and renew existing assets, and build new ones to accommodate population and service level needs (Grewel 2011; Sancton 1996). Estimates suggest that Toronto’s infrastructure deficit will climb from $2-billion in 2013 to $2.4-billion by 2020, as much of the infrastructure built during the 1950s and 1960s goes unrepaired. Likewise, a repair backlog for social housing estimated at $860-million is expected to rise, with $2.6-billion in capital funding needed over the next decade. This structural shortfall is not the result of overgenerous social services or the excessive wages of unionized employees. Rather, they are a legacy of growing, long-term pressures resulting from population growth and downloaded infrastructure and public service costs from provincial and federal governments, especially for transit and housing. Thus Toronto is a city that has both a housing boom and housing crisis existing in tandem.

How to provide quality, affordable housing is, of course, a complex multilateral issue. In general, however, the City of Toronto (as elsewhere) has preferred voluntaristic agreements and incentives for developers, rather than mandatory measures. As noted earlier, given municipalities’ limited financial capacities they are constrained in their abilities to build and operate housing facilities as well as programs that address the lack of affordable housing and homelessness. This does not, however, mean that municipalities are impotent. They can examine their own regulations to eliminate barriers to the provision of affordable housing, including the legalization of secondary units, new density agreements for affordable and rental housing, the provision of land for emergency, transition, supportive, belowmarket housing, prohibiting the conversion of rental suites and charging a dedicated development levy that goes into a fund for affordable housing. Municipalities can also enhance planning and zoning support, regulation and business licensing; design levies to discourage quick “flipping” and housing market speculation; fine owners of long-term empty “investment” properties; and strengthen by-laws and building regulations. New measures by other levels of government, including new regional coordination and municipal governance capacities, are of course also necessary, such as changes to tax policy to encourage the construction of rental housing, strengthening of existing legislation, maintaining and expanding existing funding programs for homelessness and affordable housing, and inducements for non-profit and cooperative housing. One such measure is an inclusionary zoning policy mandating 10 to 15 per cent of all units in large residential buildings be set aside for affordable housing. In fact, since amalgamation, the City has requested more than a dozen times the administrative power to use inclusionary zoning. And yet, despite some 95,000 households on the city’s affordable housing waiting list, the Province has refused to devolve such powers. Although inclusionary zoning will not resolve Toronto’s housing crisis, it will offset some pressures. New investments from federal and provincial governments will also be necessary in order to begin addressing the shortage of affordable housing. However, since transfers are out of municipalities’ hands, there is little certainty about future funding and uploading of costs.

Reimagining the Municipal Bargain

In order to counter the municipal race to the bottom, it is necessary to change the social attitudes about the role of taxation and make the connections between social justice and workplace democracy. Ontario municipalities’ current reliance on property taxes is unsustainable in the long run and merely shifts the burden of responsibility for social and physical infrastructure from one generation to the next, and from capital to labour. While increasing municipal development charges is an important revenue initiative, it tends to be cyclical in nature and relies on the unstable fluctuations of real estate markets. It is necessary, therefore, to establish dedicated funding to municipalities by other tiers of government as well as independent revenue-raising capacities. The fiscal mechanism for this is straightforward in a sense of reversing corporate and personal income tax cuts implemented since at least 2008 and raising the GST back to 7 per cent, with dedicated funding to municipalities. These measures could provide consistent and secure funding, which could begin to redress decades of underinvestment and neglect across Canadian municipalities. Turning to wealthy individuals and corporations, who have benefited the most from neoliberal tax reforms, and having them contribute a fairer share in terms of higher corporate and income taxes, would be a symbolic and significant initial step. But wider populist, anti-tax sentiments must also be challenged, so that more goods and services come through public, and not private, consumption.

As Figure 1 shows, despite the City of Toronto having a broader range of revenue tools than other Ontario municipalities, it continues to overwhelmingly rely on property taxes to raise revenue outside of federal and provincial transfers. And from this, as Figure 2 demonstrates, the City must provide a range of services including general government administration, social assistance, health services, social housing, fire and police services, long-term care, shelters, libraries, parks, recreation and so forth. Hence, an alternative municipal agenda also needs to consider a broader range of options for mobilizing revenues beyond property taxes. This is especially the case so that user fees can be cut and eliminated for many services as part of broader social equity initiatives.

This heavy reliance on property taxes as the major source of revenue is not the norm outside Canada. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average is 36 per cent. Cities in the Nordic countries – Germany and Switzerland, for example – receive over 90 per cent of their tax revenue from income taxes, while Hungary and the Netherlands collect between 50 and 75 per cent of local revenue from various sales taxes. Similarly, in France, Japan, Korea and the U.S., sales taxes comprise about 20 per cent of local revenue. As the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2012) has argued, there is no natural law dictating that local governments be exclusively dependent on the property tax. Rather, they argue that a multiplicity of revenue streams is needed to ensure diversity, balance and stable, long-term funding for Canadian municipalities.

There are a number of issues that should be taken into view when considering new revenue-raising capacities for local governments:

The size and corporate sophistication of municipalities, local fiscal conditions, tax administration capacity, and efficiency considerations such as the risk of leakage across jurisdictional boundaries. In general, taxing powers make more sense for larger cities that deliver a broader range of human services, have greater administrative capacity, and could encourage implementation of taxes across metropolitan areas. Local governments should also be responsible for levying the taxes and setting the rates – even when other governments are responsible for administration. (Cote and Fenn 2014: 50)

Extensive research has demonstrated the social and economic benefits of expanding the tax base and reinvesting in public services. The case for enhanced public investment has been made across the political spectrum, in both the private and public sectors as well as by various think-tanks and research centres. The Toronto and York Region Board of Trade, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Institute for Municipal Finance and Governance, Metrolinx and even the CD Howe Institute have recently moved in this direction (Hjartarson, Hinton and Szala 2011; Scarth 2014; trbot 2013).

Metrolinx (2013), a crown agency that administers and integrates road and public transportation across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas, has recently suggested a series of investment options for dealing with Toronto’s revenue problem that, unlike inelastic property taxes, are better linked to growth in the local economy. This includes a 1 per cent hike to the province’s Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), which would bring in an additional $1.3-billion annually; 25 cents to $1 per day on commercial parking spaces depending on assessed property values, which could generate between $350-million and $1.4-billion; and a 5 cent per litre fuel surcharge estimated to bring in some $330-million. Combined, these new revenue tools could raise around $2-billion annually for transit expansion costing the average household about $477 annually.

When compared with the average cost of congestion, which is estimated to run the average family around $1,600 annually in lost productivity, plus the cost of car ownership pegged at $8,000 per year, these measures are cost effective and ensure that people have access to the services they rely on. It also encourages public, not private, consumption through a reduction in individual car use and fossil fuels emissions. Metrolinx has also suggested the implementation of a tax credit to assist low-income residents in paying the additional HST and related costs. Further funding proposals include: 15 per cent increase in development charges worth $100-million; 30 cents per kilometre for high-occupancy toll lanes (free for motorists with at least two passengers, with the option of paying a toll for single drivers), which could bring in anywhere from $25-million to $250-million depending on its expansiveness; $2 to $4 per day for parking at GO stations, which would bring in between $20 and $40-million; land-value capture along transit lines for $20-million; and a 0.5 per cent employer payroll levy, which is estimated to raise as much as $920-million (aecom-kpmg 2013; fcm 2003; tcsa 2010; Broadbent 2008).

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (2010: 6–7) has argued:

Over the next 50 years there is the risk of public infrastructure underinvestment that could cost the Canadian economy 1.1 per cent of real gross domestic product (GDP) growth. The effect of this underinvestment on the Canadian public breaks down as follows: It will cost the average Canadian worker between $9,000 and $51,000, with the younger generation disproportionately at risk, and decrease the after-tax profitability of Canadian businesses by a long term average of 20 per cent … Results show that for every extra dollar paid in taxation revenue, the taxpayer is better off by $1.48 on average, in after-tax wage terms. That means mitigating the underinvestment risk is cost effective.

A number of polls and studies have pointed toward people being willing to pay more in taxes so long as the funding is dedicated to issues that keep people healthy and help balance work–life conflicts – like transit, infrastructure and public services – rather than deal with the consequences of inaction (Burda and Haines 2012; Global Toronto 2014; Transport Canada 2009; Forum Research 2013). New taxation and administrative powers could be accomplished by provincial legislation that cements new revenue-raising capacities, collection and enforcement by aligning local taxes on the provincial rate collected by the Canada Revenue Agency. Some also argue:

Urbanization and the outsized economic role of city–regions are creating pressures to reform fiscal and governance arrangements to foster the conditions for growth and social progress. The trend line has not been smooth, but it has been steadily heading toward the decentralization of responsibilities to local governments … The case for decentralization is premised on the proposition that local governments have superior access to local information compared with higher-order governments, allowing them to better respond to local needs.  (Cote and Fenn 2014: 20)

The notion of a “new localism” is one which has been at the heart of a growing debate in central and local government since at the least the early 1990s. The origins of new localist thought stem from pressures on governments to consider whether they should divest more governance capacities at the local level in the context of eroding nation–state power. In an era allegedly characterized by the geographical restructuring of economic relations and spatial reconstitution of state power to supra-national and local bodies, these debates have also tended to juxtapose the coordinated market economies of the post-war Keynesian era with the neoliberal city of the last three decades. But they have also been criticized for reinforcing certain neoliberal frameworks and assumptions (Peck and Tickell 1994; Gough 1996).

This includes an emphasis on the virtues of local, globally competitive markets for mobile investment, fiscal restraint, marketization of public services and assets and inter-local competition designed to stimulate business-friendly labour market policies via the erosion of regulatory capacities and new concessionary demands. However, neoliberalism as a political economic practice should not be read as a juxtaposition of (less) state against (more) market, but rather as a particular kind of state suited to the logic of accumulation in a specific historical phase of capitalist development (Albo and Fanelli 2014; Panitch and Gindin 2012).

In the absence of new multi-scalar governance capacities and planning orientations, a disembedded focus on the local may reinforce existing issues and concerns. As discussed above, land-use planning as much as transportation, social ecologies and economic development overlaps with the borders of other municipalities and provinces. Likewise, beggar-thy-neighbour tax policies and intensified municipal competition might undermine land-use planning that seeks to restrain unchecked growth. As Greg Albo notes (2007: 23):

Eco-localism projects the local as an ideal scale and conceives communitarian eco-utopias in a politics that is individualizing and particularizing. Under neoliberalism, eco-localism has evolved into a practical attempt to alter individual market behaviours, and to disconnect and internalize local ecologies and communities from wider struggles and political ambitions.

There are few reasons to suggest, however, that

the national and global are on a scale that is any less human and practical than the local. This is not to deny the importance of the local in anti-neoliberal politics; nor the importance of the question of appropriate scale for post-capitalist societies. It is to insist, however, that local socio-ecological struggles cannot be delinked from – and are indeed always potentially representative of – universal projects of transcending capitalism on a world scale. (Albo 2007: 23)

Building up local bases of power and administration must be connected to projects to transform national state power and to internationalize political struggles and alliances against the world capitalist market. A fetishization of the local can undermine broader equity and social justice initiatives, fragmenting collective planning and alternative policies to neoliberalism (Sharzer 2012).

For Peck and Tickell (2012: 247–8), the solution is not to re-double local efforts aimed at stimulating globally competitive urban environments,

but to challenge and ultimately transcend the extra-local rules of the game that were being shaped by the rolling process of neoliberalization, since the potential of local initiatives would always be limited by an essentially antithetical, competitive inter-local settlement. These challenges, in turn, were framed by the intrinsically regressive scalar politics of neoliberalism, which duplicitously conferred on local agencies and interests responsibility without power, while brazenly granting global institutions and actors power without responsibility.

In the absence of cooperative mechanisms and strategies for new planning orientations between local, regional, national and international levels, then, it is difficult to envision an alternative political economic project emerging.

Building a New Urban Politics

As geographers are keen to remind, space matters. The extent to which smaller, rural and northern communities can provide expensive services like firefighting, infrastructure, community services, roads and safe drinking water are much different than the capacities of larger, southern Ontario municipalities. So conferring new powers to municipal councils still requires forming new urban planning orientations at other governance scales. In other words, given the diverse needs and capacities of municipalities, policymaking that recognizes the specificities of size, geography, economy and so on might generate the conditions amenable to creating a province-wide, comprehensive approach to match Ontario’s diverse local needs. This might include, for instance, community boards that debate and advise on local issues, participatory budgeting and region-wide campaigns aimed at living wages. Likewise, strong national and provincial standards for municipalities facilitate best practices and are beneficial because they ensure public health and safety standards as reasonable checks on local autonomy and preventative measures against competitive austerity. Such cooperative intergovernmental arrangements could go a long way in achieving real costs savings, accountability, enhanced outcomes, mature local governance and responsive public services.

Anti-austerity activists in Toronto.

In the Canadian mayoral system, where the council remains the supreme decision-maker and the mayor is considered first-among-equals within a legislative body, local governments encounter their own unique set of governance and administrative challenges – as was illustrated by the stripping-away of Rob Ford’s mayoral powers in 2014 (cbc 2013). For instance, beyond new and independent revenue-raising sources, enhanced collection and enforcement of municipal fines and charges could go a long way in recuperating the estimated $1-billion in outstanding charges across Ontario municipalities (Cote and Fenn 2014). But municipalities cannot go it alone in order to resolve issues related to climate change, public transportation, housing, social services and wastewater. These challenges require developing new intergovernmental planning capacities with dedicated funding to launch a national transit strategy and clean water fund, community development strategies in self-governing northern and First Nations communities and new investments in social services provisioning and infrastructure. The only realistic starting point for the Province of Ontario (as much as the Government of Canada) is to recognize that municipal downloading and austerity have created more problems than they have solved. The unwillingness of federal and provincial governments to extend governance autonomy and revenue powers to municipalities prevents local governments from democratically establishing public policies that are a counter to neoliberalism. In practice, this structural incapacity reinforces capital mobility avoiding any centralization or harmonization of policies safeguarding against the potential market-inhibiting “abuses of democracy.”

Of course, there is also a political imperative to do more thinking about alternative responses to the challenges confronting municipalities informed by labour, community groups, First Nations, municipal associations and other civil society groups. “Rights to the city” campaigns in North America, for example, are focusing on free public transit, social housing and public spaces that are protected from commercialization and anti-poverty initiatives. David Harvey (2008: 40) suggests adopting

the right to the city as both working slogan and political ideal, precisely because it focuses on the question of who commands the necessary connection between urbanization and surplus production and use. The democratization of that right, and the construction of a broad social movement to enforce its will is imperative if the dispossessed are to take back the control which they have for so long been denied, and if they are to institute new modes of urbanization.

Of course, only new organizational capacities will make such ideas politically viable. As such, the goal over the long term should include dedicated organizing strategies intent on creating new inroads into spaces currently seen as private. These initiatives would need to emphasize the social value of extending public services and shift the debate from focusing solely on individual consumerist needs met through the market and tax cuts, to creating livable cities that offer decent employment, public spaces, universal public services and climate change-informed development.

Making the case for an expanded public sector counters the prevailing orthodoxy of neoliberalism – one that challenges private accumulation as the engine of economic growth – and raises a set of demands for non-commodified labour and services. This means not only expanding the redistributive role of the state, but also taking the lead in ensuring access to housing, public transit, community centres and other social services irrespective of urban and regional boundaries. Reducing public spending will increase unemployment, weaken consumption and exacerbate income inequality, along with reinforcing ethno-racial and gendered labour market/life insecurities. One of the silver linings of the recession has been the fact that governments can borrow money at historically low interest rates, making large-scale public reinvestments feasible. Likewise, with the cash holdings of non-financial corporations increasing faster in Canada than anywhere else in the G7 since the mid-2000s, it is clear that corporate hordes of “dead money” – to borrow a phrase from former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney – have also become an economic and social liability, particularly in the context of the private sector’s unwillingness to create new jobs.

Research by Jim Stanford has shown that “since the first of several rounds of business tax reforms and reductions were implemented in 1988, business investment has declined by 1 full percentage point of GDP – even though after-tax business cash-flow has increased (in part as a direct result of the tax reforms) by 3 to 4 percentage points of GDP.” This led Stanford (2011: 3-4) to conclude: “As a means of stimulating growth, employment and even private business spending the historical evidence suggests that business tax cuts are both economically ineffective and distributionally regressive.” Instead of using the extra cash to boost investments in machinery, equipment, new plants, new hires and research and development, nearly half of all profits have gone to boosting shareholder dividends. As such, the rate of investment in new machinery, equipment and people over the past decade has declined in lockstep with lower tax rates, putting Canada dead last among peer countries when it comes to new investments in research and development (CLC 2012; Conference Board of Canada 2014). By the end of 2014 corporations held some $680-billion on hand, larger than Canada’s national debt, during which time new public investments as a percentage of GDP fell from the average of 2–3 per cent in the 1960s and 1970s to around 0.5 per cent since the mid-1990s, where it has remained ever since. Reallocating this “dead money” away from financing tax cuts and toward new public investments in social and physical infrastructure through a reversal of the tax cuts that have been a hallmark of neoliberal governments would provide both a direct economic stimulus and job growth in the face of the private sector’s unwillingness to spend. Thus the focus ought to be on enhancing public revenue by rebuilding stable, long-term funding streams rather than that onesize-fits-all diktat of austerity-driven expenditure restraint and service cuts alone.

In the absence of organized civic political parties (they are effectively banned in Ontario by the Municipal Elections Act), trade union and community activists must fill that void. One of the few exceptions in speaking out against municipal service level and staff cuts has been radical sections of the anti-poverty movement. In the face of continued gentrification across Toronto (partly driven by the property tax that is tied to market value), falling housing affordability and a looming real estate bubble, many working poor families continue to fall deeper into debt amidst increasing social insecurity in what is ultimately a city divided by race and class (Hulchanski 2010; Walks and Maaranen 2008). It is not clear that the moral outrages at the service cuts that have been the dominant political response of various civil society organizations and some unions will lead organizationally to anything new and more effective. A long period of stagnation could heighten the municipal crisis as poorly funded cities continue their social polarization and decline. The political coalitions that have arisen in Toronto (and across Ontario) to fight the cuts over the last two decades have been unable to reverse these processes, although they have certainly slowed it down in some important ways.

Some of the most notable of these are found in locally rooted union and community-based movements. This includes Local 79 and 416 campaigns for the extension of public services; Toronto Hydro workers’ struggles against privatization; Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113’s We Move Toronto campaign for the expansion of public transit; and the Toronto and York Region Labour Council’s Retirement Security for Everyone campaign. Others include the Good Jobs For All Coalition, an alliance of community, labour, social justice, youth and environmental organizations challenging low-waged and precarious work across the city and region; the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and the Stop the Cuts campaign; the Idle No More and Defenders of the Land housing and Indigenous rights movements; Toronto Environmental Alliance efforts around waste privatization, opposition to the Line 9 oil pipeline between Ontario and Quebec and climate justice; Ontario Health Coalition efforts against cuts to healthcare funding and public–private partnerships; the Workers’ Action Centre-led campaign for a $15 Living Wage; and No One Is Illegal struggles around migrant justice, just to name a few.

While it is still too early to tell what will amount of these movements and campaigns over the long term, these labour and community-based responses to social injustice are beginning to rebuild a democratic praxis from below that challenges market rule. Activists continue to struggle with new ways of understanding the relationship of movements to one another, their shared interests and how to build solidaristic political capacities wherein alternative and oppositional political views may emerge. •

Carlo Fanelli teaches in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Ryerson University, and is a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Occupational Therapy at Western University. Megacity Malaise is available from Fernwood Publishing.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Megacity Malaise: Neoliberalism, Public Services and Labour in Toronto

Muhammad Ali: An American Muslim

June 5th, 2016 by Sufyan bin Uzayr

Muhammad Ali, the greatest boxer this world has ever known, is no more. The fact that he is gone is difficult to come to terms with — for years, Ali was renowned as a larger than life figure, the Greatest as he would call himself, and the demise of a man of such a high stature is surely a void that can never be filled.

In the world of sports, Muhammad Ali will forever be known as the boxing legend who won 56 bouts over the period of a 21-year career. In popular culture, he will be remembered as the man who was not afraid when it came to speaking his mind — someone who was not shy of talking about things unrelated to boxing, and would always take the right stand when needed.

But that is not the only reason why this world will miss Muhammad Ali.

Muhammad Ali: An American Muslim

Back in 1964, Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr changed his name to Muhammad Ali.

Cassius Clay is a slave name. I didn’t choose it, and I didn’t want it. I am Muhammad Ali, a free name – it means beloved of God – and I insist people use it when speaking to me and of me.

He was, at that time, one of the most high-profile Americans to revert to Islam. As a Muslim, Ali could free himself from the racial bias that the American society in 1960s was known for. Islam offers no room for racism — “Indeed, there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety and good action.” (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) — and this gave Muhammad Ali a chance to be truly independent.

Ali would then go on to get involved with the Nation of Islam, but eventually, in 1975, he left NOI and turned towards mainstream Sunni Islam.

The Anti-Establishment Icon

Muhammad Ali risked his career and reputation by opposing the US-Vietnam War. Furthermore, he refused to serve in the US Army and in the process, was accused of committing a felony.

His reasons were simple. The Vietnam War was a proxy war to propagate US hegemony in Asia, and Ali wanted to have nothing to do with it. As he stated:

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong—no Viet Cong ever called me nigger.

Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs?

The above remark provided enough fuel for many people to oppose the military draft. Compelling civilians and soldiers to enter into a war just to satisfy the ambitions of the ruling class — this surely was not something Ali wanted to be known for.

Ali was then stripped of his titles and had his boxing license suspended. The US Supreme Court later overturned this decision, but by that time, Ali had lost four years of his boxing career.

However, while it did damage his boxing career, Muhammad Ali’s refusal to take part in the War had deep-reaching effects on the social level.

In Memoriam

I do not weep simply for the death of Ali because death is an inevitable fact, and Muhammad Ali lived an illustrious life. He was a boxer par excellence, a social reformer, a fighter, and obviously, a Muslim.

It was his status as a Muslim that urged him to correct misconceptions about Islam and raise awareness among the masses. When Donald Trump played with the idea of a ban on Islam in USA, it was Muhammad Ali who stood tall against this ridiculous concept.

I weep because Ali was universally loved. Every single time Islamophobia rose in the West, with people questioning Muslims everywhere, he would be there to prove the haters wrong. No one, and truly no one, could despise or hate Ali as “that extremist Muslim”.

I weep because now that Muhammad Ali is no more, the list of Muslims whom the world does not hate has grown even shorter.

Whether it be his in-ring career, or his refusal to be a part of the US invasion of Vietnam, or his life as a Muslim, Muhammad Ali stood up for ideas he believed in. Even to this day, criticizing your country’s foreign policy can have disastrous effects. But Ali was one of the very few bravehearts who had the courage to criticize US foreign policy back in the 1960s.

Now that he is gone, this world is left with memories, and a void that cannot be filled. In Ali’s own words:

I won’t miss fighting, fighting will miss me.

Rest in Peace, Muhammad Ali.

Sufyan bin Uzayr writes for various reputed publications and verticals, and is the author of several books. He regularly blogs about issues of contemporary relevance at Political Periscope (www.politicalperiscope.com).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Muhammad Ali: An American Muslim

The Global Economy and Europe’s Chronic Stagnation

June 5th, 2016 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

The global economy is in deep trouble. And there are growing signs that the US economy is slowing as well. The paltry 0.5% GDP US growth in the first quarter 2016 (itself overestimated by at least 0.3%) will not ‘snap back’ in the second quarter, and will continue to slow over this summer. The US will slip into a moderate recession after the November elections (my predictions).

Globally, Japan is in deep trouble, with prime minister, Shinzo Abe, at the recent G7 meeting, declaring another ‘Lehman Brothers Moment’ (the bank that collapsed in September 2008) is approaching. His warnings were ignored by the other G7 ministers. Japan’s massive QE and negative interest rates experiment has failed. The Eurozone central bank, like the Japan central bank, has embarked upon a policy of negative interest rates now that QEs effects have significantly diminished. More than $10 trillion in government bonds globally are in negative rate territory. And unknown additional amount in private corporate bonds, the collapse just beginning. Globally, there are more than $10 trillion in non-performing corporate bank loans, concentrated especially in Europe and China. Should a UK ‘Brexit’ event occur on June 23 (I predict a 55-45 chance it will), it may precipitate a major global stock market correction.

Global trade is dramatically slowing, real job creating investment is reaching a stagnation level, productivity in the advanced economies is already nearly zero, with predictions it will turn negative soon–the first time in the US in more than a half century. To the extent job creation has occurred in the US and advanced economies, it has been overwhelmingly ‘contingent’–i.e. part time, temp, contract…and growing ‘gig’ jobs. Median and below household income has fallen in 220 of US geographic regions.

In the USA, candidates of the two wings of the Corporate Party of America–Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump–have no idea of the depth of the discontent seething below the surface, as 18-34 youth are faced with crap jobs or no jobs, middle age workers deal with nearly a decade of little or no wage growth, and those over 65 abandon retirement and work part time service jobs to try to make ends meet. Meanwhile, everyone is gouged by escalating rents, health insurance premiums and costs, escalating education expenses, while corporations distribute $5 trillion in stock buybacks and dividend payouts to their 1% wealth investors. 50,000 at a time attend Sanders’ rallies in California, as more hear him tell them what they already know from experience.

In Europe the ruling elites’ solution to the growing problems of the economic system is ‘labor market reform’. That is, reduce wages, eliminate union bargaining power (what’s left), cut benefits, slash pensions (deferred wages), make it easier for employers to fire and layoff workers, and transfer all the savings from all the above to their companies….in the false expectation it will enable them to reduce costs and prices and thereby steal exports from their global competitors, in a rapidly slowing global trade economy. Capitalists fight over a shrinking pie, and take it out on their workers to enable them to do so. A race to the bottom.

How this has come about in Europe, read my 12,000 word chapter on Europe from my recently published book, ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’.

TO READ THE COMPLIMENTARY CHAPTER 6, ‘EUROPE’S CHRONIC STAGNATION’, go to my website at the following url:

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles.html

(FOR A COMPLIMENTARY CHAPTER 5, ‘CHINA: BUBBLES, BUBBLES, DEBT AND TROUBLES’, scroll down the articles at the url to read my assessment of economic fragility today in China).

For more on the book, ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’, go to the ‘Books’ tab on the website’s toolbar, for Synopsis, Table of Contents, and complimentary INTRODUCTION CHAPTER.

To order Jack Rasmus’ book, click the Clarity Press ad at the foot of the Left Column.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Global Economy and Europe’s Chronic Stagnation

Overthrowing Latin American Democracies behind Corporate Media Lies

June 5th, 2016 by Prof. John McMurtry

The overview below began as a letter to a major international newspaper often publishing my work.  But the US-orchestrated overthrow of elected government across Latin America is unspeakable in the corporate media.  No communication is published that connects the dot of the US- led money-party destroying any and all democratic alternatives.  This is how the life-devouring system prevails as it depredates the world, now the liberated social states of  America Sud whose elections cannot be controlled.

In the Guardian Weekly front-page story “Venezuelans angry for reform” (27 May-2 June), we find no ‘reform’ mentioned in the article below the banner headline. The narrative interviews people who “want food” and “basic goods” in a declared “socialist society”, a familiar line from the past. Explanation of the crisis is confined to the long lines for subsidized goods and quotes form frustrated shoppers.

The all-fronts campaign of social destabilization by Venezuela’s US-backed oligarchy, mass media and street gangs behind Wall-Street-shorted oil prices are all deleted from the account. The same inner logic of mass media cover-up governs the official story of every one of Latin America’s continent-wide coups against elections from Brazil to Honduras.

In the article after the one on Venezuela, “Social policies scaled back in Brazil”, the real meaning of ‘reform’ is made clear. It means more “cutting healthcare spending”, “reducing the family poverty relief system” and otherwise depriving poorer citizens and the public of collective life goods provided by their elected social states. Venezuela and Brazil are certainly not alone in the continent -wide overthrow of  democratic sovereignty and public life infrastructures. Social-program slashing across Latin America now reverses over 15 years of fair elections and life capital development.  A corresponding financial-fascist sweep has usurped social states from Greece to Ukraine to pay for private bank system collapse by bleeding social life support systems dry.  Here too government destabilizations and overthrows without electoral legitimacy are the modus operandi.

All societies are in fact being re-set to private financial predation of public wealth, the ultimate feeding trough no corporate state or media ever reports and no national election has supported. Concealing the great public dispossession behind big lies is the moral of the story across oceans.

Public life liquidated to ensure money gains to the rich is the inner truth of all the covert coups. Venezuela has been targeted since before 1999. Progressive elected governments in Honduras and Paraguay have already been overthrown by US-approved rightist coups. Argentina’s government has been financially strangled and led by corporate media hysteria and US court-supported vulture funds.  Brazil ‘s government has been toppled led by gangster politicians who avoid their own criminal prosecution for private theft from the state by projection onto the democratically elected president with 54 million votes who is innocent of any crime under law. Ecuador and Bolivia are now in the cross-hairs as well.  Blanket media destabilization and accusations without citizen vote or court decision are the transnational strategy of reversing social evolution after endless defeats of the right at the polls.

But the dots are never joined in the public conversations.  The elected governments are blamed, and the poor’s rising deprivations are disconnected from the money-party forces always orchestrating them. That these same forces are rooted in the death-squad dictatorships of the past is buried from sight in the official narratives inside and outside victim societies.

Even as the IMF admits that its ‘austerity programs’ have failed, media propaganda and social destruction rampage on.  In this way, the most advanced policies and governments in Latin America since the mass-murder dictatorships of US-led coups from the 1950’s on are reversed beneath public notice today.  All the while media headlines mislead us to believe that the poor support the stripping of their elected social states which is always, in fact, led by system-wide financial schemes and social sabotage backed by Washington and Wall Street.

John McMurtry is author of The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure.  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Overthrowing Latin American Democracies behind Corporate Media Lies

The Tragedy of Syria and the Middle East at Large

June 5th, 2016 by Peter Koenig

Amin Abadi of the  Kayhan Institute, Teheran interviews renowned economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig.

The interview entitled “The Tragedy of Syria and the Middle East at Large” was published in Farsi in Kayhan (Cosmos), one of Iran’s most prominent newspapers. Below is the original English version of the interview.

Amin Abadi: What is the major reason for Syrian crisis in your point of view, the crisis that includes massacre of thousands of people and homelessness of too many

Peter Koenig

By 2011 the ‘opposition’ was ready to launch a civil war on behalf of Washington against the Government of Bashar al-Assad, the democratically elected President of Syria, elected with a vast majority; and after five-years of foreign imposed war on the people of Syria, his approval rating is still above 70%. The ‘opposition’ – al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and whatever other names the ‘western friendly’ opposition was given to confuse the public at large by western media, was trained, fed and armed by the CIA, Mossad, Saudi Arabia – and of course, Vassal-Europe’s / NATO secret services.

Backtracking – soon after WWII a few Zionist-headed US so-called ‘think tanks’, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – and others, concocted a plan for the United States to take over the world. They called it ‘Pax Americana’ after the Roman Empire’s ‘Pax Romana’ which were arguably the 300 to 400 bloodiest years of the Roman Empire.

This is an ongoing plan, modified and adjusted according to new circumstances, but never deviating from the final objective – Full Spectrum Dominance. In the early nineties, under neoliberal banking deregulator Clinton, the plan’s name was changed to ‘Plan for a New American Century’ – PNAC. ‘Pax Americana’ may have been too obvious a give-away for a country that propagates democracy around the world, while spreading dictatorships to achieve a One or New World Order. Mind you, the Chosen People, are masterminding the New World Order – which includes the take-over of the Middle East.

Within PNAC, the Middle East’s destruction and chaos was planned for a long time, according to the motto – divide to reign. It’s part of the take-over of the world and its resources. The Middle East’s major natural resources are hydrocarbons – and “who controls energy controls the Continents; who controls food, controls the people; and who controls money – controls the world” – the infamous words spoken by war criminal Henry Kissinger already in the early seventies. It remains the motto on which the PNAC is built.

This is a long introduction to get to the point: The PNAC singles out in particular a number of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries that have to fall – regardless. Period. They include, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia – not necessarily in this order, but their destruction and subordination, or to use the term that emerged after Clinton’s destruction of peaceful and prosperous Yugoslavia – Balkanization – was planned. Yugoslavia was divided into chaos, to be controlled by the US / NATO forces – and to advance NATO bases ever closer to Russia.

The ‘balkanization’ of Syria is particularly ‘necessary’ for the Empire, as it is strategically located on the Mediterranean Sea and a potential thoroughfare for oil pipelines from the Gulf countries to serve the vast European markets and become a fierce competition for hydrocarbons from Russia.

At present about 35% of the world’s seaborne traded oil (and about 20% of all oil worldwide) passes through the Strait of Hurmuz, one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints, which is largely controlled by Iran; and, by the way, is a key factor in the US-Iran tensions – which in fact have nothing to do with an alleged Iranian ‘nuclear threat’. This is nothing but a public opinion manipulating farce propagated by western media.

Of course, Washington needs to dominate and cannot deal with democratically elected socialist leaders like Iran’s Hassan Rouhani, or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. In Syria, Mr. Assad has full popular support as recently demonstrated by Syria’s Parliamentarian elections. He is leading a secular socialist government with equal rights and free social services like health and education – all of which does not fit Washington’s neoliberal fascist concept of privatizing-everything in the New World Order under their reign. So – for Washington there is not even a question of ‘peace’ as long as President Assad is the head of Syria. For Washington and its European vassal allies, there is only one way: “regime change”.

By now it is no longer a secret, not even in the western media, who created, funded, trained and armed ISIS or the Islamic State (IS) terrorism – the United States of America, by recruiting remnants of Saddam Hussein’s elite defense forces after his murder. Now maintenance of the Islamic State is shared largely between the US, the Saudis, Qatar and other Gulf states – and Turkey, President Erdogan being the number one US puppet, leading a crucially strategically located NATO country, who can be ordered to do anything that Washington demands – like shooting down a Russian fighter jet.

Fortunately, there is Russia and President Putin. He has put a monkey wrench in the wheels of aggression of the western forces who were pretending vis-à-vis the western public that they were fighting ISIS (or IS), but in fact were supporting them, by bombing mostly Syrian civilian populations and supplying IS with arms, letting them smuggling stolen petrol into Turkey for sale to such illustrious ‘enemies’ like Israel and others in Europe. In a few months Mr. Putin put an end to IS dominance in Syria and western aggressions, liberating most of IS-occupied territory, and putting the Syrian army back in charge.

This left Washington and its European vassals up in arms – what to do? Despite the self-inflicted or ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, which were to justify more NATO bombing of Syria – Russia’s air force and strategy prevailed in bringing back, at least in part, Syria’s sovereignty. – Therefore Washington had to gain time – for NATO and IS to regroup and to rethink (sic). Hence, the so-called Geneva Peace Talks were called. As we know now, they are unlikely to lead anywhere – as long as Washington and its European NATO stooges insist on ‘regime change’.

Be sure, while Washington keeps breathing, they will never relent; they will never make any serious concession which deviates from their plan – other than agreements they break by deceit, as we already see with the Iranian Nuclear Agreement. That is their firm strategy. Never get detracted from your goal – à la Roman Empire – which eventually collapsed through internal forces.

AA: Do you believe that big powers across the world including America has fulfilled their humanitarian responsibilities and moral obligations toward Syrian people?

PK: Of course not. To the contrary, they are responsible for the humanitarian disaster, for over 4 million of displaced people, for more than half a million killed by a ‘civil war’, entirely instigated and funded by foreign forces. They are responsible for uncountable human tragedies, for the flood of refugees into Europe via Turkey. Mind you this flood of refugees from Syria and other western devastated MENA countries was also planned, as a ‘weapon’ to destabilize Europe.

The US and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States funded refugee camps in Turkey at the tune of 6 billion dollars – camps that can hold more than 4 million refugees. Erdogan was told by his transatlantic masters – keep them in Turkey until we tell you to open the flood-gates. That’s exactly what he did. Last fall came the order – let them go. And he did let them go – into a European wet and cold fall and winter season, difficult to give shelter to sudden multitudes of refugees. In masses they crossed the Aegean Sea to the Greek islands or the Mediterranean to Italy and southern France. Many of the refugees were told to go to Germany, that’s where the future is – many of them were actually given ‘road maps’ to Germany, Austria and some other northern European countries.

Germany in 2015 absorbed at least a million refugees from MENA and African countries and is expected to take in at least as many in 2016. Yet, as these lines are written, Madame Merkel is negotiating with Mr. Erdogan a six-billion euro-plus deal to keep the refugees in Turkey. The blackmail specialist, Erdogan is getting paid from both sides. He must keep his fraudulently acquired money in safer places than Panama.

A new, little spoken about but horrendous tragedy is lately emerging from Europol – possibly as many as 10,000 refugee children, mostly orphans, have disappeared. Have they fallen into the hands of child traders, using and selling them for slave labor and the girls into sex trade?

All is possible in our western world where all sense of ethics has disappeared in the last 30 years or more; but at least since the ascent of neoliberal – everything-goes-for-profit – fascism. After all, Europe’s records on ethics is historically abysmal – having raped, plundered and killed hundreds of millions of Africans, Asians and South Americans in their hundreds of years of colonies around the world. One would have hoped after two world wars they would come to reason. But no. There is something fundamentally wrong with this ‘Chosen People’-dominated western world.

Yet, there was another strategy in place – to destroy Greece completely. She is already being slaughtered, humiliated and – I dare say – assassinated by the troika – European Commission (EC), European Central Bank (ECB – which is not really a central bank) and the infamous IMF, the long-arm instrument of the US Federal Reserve (FED) and of Wall Street. History shows that Greece is a country of enormous human resources and resilience. This resilience has to be broken and annihilated. After all, Greece, together with Turkey and Germany, is host to one of the most important strategic NATO base. Greece cannot remain an autonomous, sovereign state and god forbid – with a socialist government. Never.

So, the northern European countries closed their borders to Greece; and Greece could not return the refugees to Turkey, mostly because of humanitarian reasons. What would happen to them back in Turkey – under Erdogan’s fist – and thousands of refugees have already lost their lives attempting to cross the seas to safer havens. Ironically, these safer havens are the very European nations that helped destroy their homes, livelihoods, tear their families apart – kill literally millions of them during the past 15 years. Go and seek help from your executioner! – What a fate! – Greece, with not enough resources to feed its own people, had to look after and protect the lives of hundreds of thousands of refugees, who were not allowed by her northern neighbors to move on.

Talk about solidarity – there is none. The European Union is a sham; an unsustainable fraud.:

AA: You have mentioned in your article The Children of Syria published by Global Research that Obama is the biggest misuser of human rights in the world of the century, would you explain us more about that.

PK: Sure. For one thing, Mr. Obama has started more wars than his predecessor; he is today involved in seven wars, as he boasts himself. And this for a Peace Nobel Prize winner – a prize given to him at the beginning of his tenure, in hope that he would bring peace to the world. But no. He was given a different agenda by his masters. The secret masters at the top of this opaque triangle, the elite of the elite, some call them ‘Illuminati’ others, the secret Masters of the Free Masons.

The known semi-secretive organizations, like the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the British Chatham House, the World Economic Forum (WEF) – and others – are all instruments used subjugate the world by the top of the evasive triangle. The ‘leaders’ below, Obama, Hollande, Merkel, Cameron and Co. are all puppets, put in place by above and executing orders from above. The elusive above is led by ‘The Chosen People’. – Sounds like conspiracy theory? – Think again and look at who is heading the FED, Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants, the media and communications industry, the military industrial complex – and so on.

Back to the question on human rights – Obama is also abusing human rights by his drone killings. He has openly admitted, if not boasted about approving every drone killing himself. Mostly on Tuesdays, he looks at lists of alleged terrorists around the world, and he decides who must be eliminated, no accusation, no trial, no investigation. He is god, deciding over life and death, giving the job to actually pull the drone trigger to some young soldiers who love ‘play stations’ – killing unknown people thousands of kilometers away, mostly aiming at people’s gatherings like weddings, funerals or other family events, in which, maybe, the target is present. They kill hundreds of people who have nothing to do with the alleged ‘terrorist’ – they become ‘bug-splats’, military jargon for remotely killed unknown people. On Obama’s orders; who fulfills a world agenda of the above.

Other than the two world wars, there is hardly anybody on this planet who is responsible for killing more people in the last hundred years than Obama. He is a puppet alright, but even puppets have a conscience – don’t they, or shouldn’t they?

AA: You have mentioned in your article that tens of thousands people have been killed during the last 15 years because of the drone attacks conducted by France, America and United Kingdom and more than 90 percent of the victims were civilians. Why have the international communities responsible for human rights such as United Nations kept silence against these crimes?

PK:  There is no international community that is not in the claws of the United States of America. In the last 20-30 years they have all become lackeys for the Empire. It’s sad to say, but the United Nations, born in October 1945 from the League of Nation, created after WWI to assure peace around the world, has become but a tool for Washington to manipulate the world. Every UN Secretary General has to be approved, if not selected by Washington. All the UN Special Agencies, like WHO, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNICEF, World Bank, IMF and more – are under direct orders from Washington. If anyone misbehaves, as has happened at times, with WHO and UNESCO among other, the US simply withholds its share of funding and pressures other countries to do likewise – until the respective agency falls back in track. So simple.

The worst is the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. From a court you would expect neutrality and justice. How come all the ‘criminals’ accused and condemned are enemies of the Empire? But the real criminals and war criminals, like the US Presidents of the last 60 years and their aids, are not even accused, let alone tried and brought to justice. In a just world they all would deserve a judgement Nuremberg style.

That’s why all these agencies, the international community, keeps silent about these crimes – the drone killings, the ‘illegal’ wars (all wars are illegal and crimes against humanity), proxy-instigated and fed conflicts, go without judgement. People are afraid of sanctions, of Washington’s sledgehammer.

Fear is the key instrument used by any empire to manipulate people. Just organize somewhere an act of terror – and people are afraid, screaming for help – please more police, more military protection – they even ask that their civil rights be abrogated for ‘protection’. That’s how President Hollande was able to extent the state of emergency (Martial Law) in France. He is still working on perpetuating it into the French Constitution.

AA: As you mentioned in your last article, millions of people in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan are living in a very low standards of life, they are suffering from poverty and that misery is only because of the greed and dominance ambitions of super powers. What is the solution to enhance their level of life?

PK:  The simple and in the end only answer is peace and social justice. How to achieve that is a different question. It needs a shift in paradigm. It requires a different human consciousness, one not driven by greed and power, but by a sense of human solidarity, by a desire to live together in harmony and in harmony with nature – a society that is not just thriving on consumerism, on absurd annual growth of consumption – a society that is aware of its surroundings, of Mother Earth, her entire ecosystem, animals, plants, natural unrenewable resources – a society that takes care of and protects its ‘neighborhood’ which is precisely that – the globe’s precious ecosystem. It is generously giving us everything we need for life, for a decent life that is – without having to kill and destroy.

This consciousness is inherent in human beings. We are all born with it. But it is imminently destroyed as we enter this greed-driven society. Yet, there is in every human brain, call it spirit or soul, a spark that glows up ever-so-often and tells us, there is something wrong with what’s going on around us. We only have to grasp this glow, this warm little light in the back of our minds, and follow it, look where it leads us. It will lead us to the truth. Maybe we have to look for it in alternative media, or just by opening our eyes. It may disturb our comfort zone. That’s the major hindrance for most people who ignore this little warm spark. In fact, crossing that threshold of abandoning our comfort zone, brings a richness of mind from which you never want to return. – That would be the solution.

AA: America has always been exposing as a state that pay close attention to peace and has a great emphasis on maintenance of democracy all over the world. But, yet the US itself has been one of the countries, having big shares on Syrian destruction. How do you see this Paradox?

PK: The ‘paying close attention to peace and democracy’ is just a propaganda farce Washington applies again and again. Ever fewer people fall for it. They see the real United States of Chaos, Greed and Power. But the paradox is, that even if nations and leaders of nations see the truth, see the lie behind the propaganda, they do not dare countering it. They are afraid of the emperor without cloths. He might dish out sanctions, economic sanctions, his atrocious military forces may invade their country, he may bring about ‘regime change’ – he may just simply kill to get what he wants. Just see what’s happening in Syria, in the Ukraine, before in Iraq, Libya – you name it. The list of leaders of unaligned nations killed by the empire in the last 70 years is long, very long.

Yes, the US has not only a big share in the Syrian disaster, it is the main instigator of the war and misery. The reason being, as explained before, full dominance of, first, the energy rich and strategic Middle East and North Africa, then of the world. And there it may falter. There is Russia and China, allied countries that will not allow a Zionist-Anglo-Saxon take-over. They have not only created an alliance among themselves, but also with the remaining BRICS (Brazil, India and South Africa), as well as with the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).

This alliance is foremost an economic and political alliance, but also one of defense. Together these countries make up about half of the world population and at least one third of the globes total economic output. They are also about to launch their independent monetary system, completely delinked form the fraudulent western fiat dollar-based casino system (for more on this, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-the-western-fiat-monetary-system-may-have-begun-china-russia-and-the-reemergence-of-gold-backed-currencies/5521107 ).

There is hope. Although do not expect a drastic overnight change. Sea changes do happen. But they are slow.

AA:  According to the received reports more than ten thousand refugees including kids have been disappeared in European countries. There is a
big probabilities that they have been kidnapped by human trafficking Bands. Such a news coming from Europe seems not to hurt anyone  seriously in West. What do you see the reason?

PK:  Indeed, as mentioned before, according to Europol, at least 10,000 refugee children disappeared. They could have easily fallen into bands of human trafficking – an utterly miserable perspective for these defenseless children, slavery, sex-exploitation, abuse all the way to death. Nobody knows about their fate. And as you said, the western media doesn’t particularly seem to care about their fate. This occurrence is almost silenced.

More important seem to be the semi-secret talks between Madame Merkel and Mr. Erdogan about the six-billion-euro deal, and the ongoing ultra-secret, behind closed-doors ‘negotiations’ of the infamous TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), the most nefarious trade agreement of recent centuries that risks to totally enslave Europe to transnational corporations, most of them US corporations

(For details see PK’s article my article entitled  EU to Become a “U.S. Colony”? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would Abolish Europe’s Sovereignty. (24 April 2016).

Human life is cheap, especially human lives in poverty and destitution is expendable, in our world of greed and without ethics.

As a last word – let me again appeal to this little warm spark in the back of your mind that we tend to ignore, as it may impinge on our comfort. Please do not ignore it. Let it glow brighter and follow it to the truth. It will warm your heart and help bring about the needed sea change.

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, CounterPunch, 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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Tragedy of Syria and the Middle East at Large

The Dirty War: Uruguay and the March Of Silence, For South America’s Martyrs and Revolutions

June 5th, 2016 by Andre Vltchek

They were marching shoulder-to-shoulder, young and old, in absolute silence. Some were carrying small placards with names and photos of their loved ones, who disappeared four decades ago, during the pro-Western dictatorship here in Uruguay.

The entire center of Montevideo came to a standstill. Blocks and blocks of this marvelous city were literally inundated by the river consisting of human bodies.

Then, in front of the municipality, the silence was broken. A huge screen above the square lit up, and photographs of each man and woman who disappeared, suddenly emerged, one by one. When no photograph was available, a gray contour was projected on the white screen. Two voices, one of a man, and one of a woman, were reading names of the victims. And the crowd chanted back: “PRESENTE!”

One block further, the “March of Silence” ended. The national anthem of Uruguay resonated all over the old city. Some people stood still, in silent salute and reverence, others fell into each other’s arms, weeping openly and uncontrollably.

Uruguay, at least to some extent a socialist country, was still standing. All over the continent, left-wing governments were collapsing, under the terrible weight of constitutional coups as well as the media and business manipulations of the ‘elites’ and the Empire. Argentina was crying out in pain under the neoliberal President Mauricio Macri, while the great Brazilian nation, fooled, cheated and spat at, was just slowly and painfully waking up after the long night of a shameless coup that brought a corrupt lackey and snitch of the West – Michel Temer – to the Presidency.

But even in Uruguay, the old establishment was still clinging to power, blocking many essential changes, resisting and silencing the calls for justice.

Around 300 people disappeared in the small Uruguay during the extreme right-wing dictatorship (1973-85), of course much less than in Argentina or Chile.

“But that is enough. Enough!” An old lady who was holding a placard with the image of her sister told me. “300 are much more than enough. We want justice and truth. Because without those, there could be no real progress in this country.”

One of the posters read:

AGAINST IMPUNITY OF THE PAST AND PRESENT! TRUTH AND JUSTICE!

Other placards were much more explicit:

NO FORGETTING NO FORGIVENESS!

And even one stronger one:

THEY ARE INSIDE US, SHOUTING ‘REVOLUTION!’

“This is so impressive, so touching!” whispers my friend Lilian Soto, a leading Paraguayan left-wing politician and former MP and Presidential candidate. “I have already participated in this march on several occasions. I really love this country!”

I briefly speak to my colleague and comrade from TeleSur, who is covering this great event for the entire Latin America and the world.

This year, after what happened in neighboring Argentina and Brazil, the march is gaining great symbolism. Cuban flags are flying, not far from the great Uruguayan Cinemateque, where my film about the US-backed 1965 coup in Indonesia had been shown, many years ago. In front of the statue of Socrates, a man poses, proudly, wrapped in a huge Brazilian flag.

“Those flags were just personal statements by several individuals,” explains my friend, Uruguayan journalist and activist Agustin Fernandez. “The demonstration was still mainly about the crimes committed by our past dictatorship.”

Mainly, yes; but those men and women I spoke to, on the night of 21 May, in the center of Montevideo, appeared to be extremely concerned about the macabre developments shaking the neighboring countries.

In Latin America, as well as all around the world, everything is clearly inter-connected. The West; the Empire, are behind almost all the horrid crimes against the humanity.

A great Greek film director, Costa Gavras, depicted the Uruguayan dictatorship and the Yankee involvement (a story of a US diplomat and expert in torture, who was kidnapped by the Uruguayan resistance group Tupamaros), in his iconic film “State of Siege” (1973).

The US and the West were behind the disappearances and torture in this historically peaceful and democratic country… as they were responsible for the horrors of fascist dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere… and just as they are accountable for the recent ‘events’ in Argentina and Brazil.

Who said that the US was ‘too busy in the Middle East, while also provoking Russia and China?’ Who said that ‘the Empire finally closed its eyes, stopped looking south?’ It never does! It never sleeps!

Walking down the streets of Montevideo, photographing and talking to the marching masses, on several occasions I felt like shouting:

“Hugo Chavez Frias!”

And:

“Salvador Allende Gossens!”

Expecting to hear those loud, clear and proud voices replying to me: “PRESENTE!”

(First published by RT)

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dirty War: Uruguay and the March Of Silence, For South America’s Martyrs and Revolutions

O Colapso de Credibilidade de Michel Temer – Agora Inelegível Por Oito Anos

June 4th, 2016 by Glen Greenwald

Desde o começo, ficou evidente que o processo de impeachment da presidente eleita, Dilma Rousseff, tinha como objetivo principal o fortalecimento dos verdadeiros ladrões de Brasília, permitindo assim que impeçam, obstruam e ponham fim às investigações da Operação Lava Jato (além de imporem uma agenda neoliberal de privatizações e austeridade extrema). Apenas 20 dias após assumir o poder, provas irrefutáveis do envolvimento do Presidente interino Michel Temer em escândalos de corrupção vieram à tona. Dois ministros interinos de seu gabinete composto apenas de homens brancos, incluindo o Ministro da Transparência, foram forçados a abandonar seus cargos depois do aparecimento de gravações secretas em que conspiram visando obstruir as investigações nas quais se encontram envolvidos, assim como 1/3 dos ministros do gabinete interino.

Mas os alarmantes níveis de corrupção de seus ministros têm por vezes servido para encobrir o envolvimento do próprio Temer. O interino também se encontra envolvido em diversas investigações de corrupção. Agora condenado formalmente por violações de leis eleitorais, encontra-se por oito anos impedido de se candidatar a qualquer cargo público. Ontem, o Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de São Paulo, estado do presidente interino, publicou uma certidão formal que o declara culpado e impedido de se candidatar a qualquer cargo público por ter se tornado um candidato “ficha suja”. Temer foi condenado por doações acima do limite de campanha permitido por lei.

Em meio a intrigas, corrupção e irregularidades no governo “interino”, as violações da lei não são a mais grave transgressão de Temer. Mas ainda assim revelam de forma evidente a fraude antidemocrática que a elite brasileira tenta perpetrar no país. Em nome da corrupção, a presidenta eleita democraticamente foi afastada e substituída por alguém que, apesar de não estar impedido por lei de assumir cargos públicos, encontra-se por oito anos impedido de se candidatar ao cargo que exerce no momento.

Apenas algumas semanas atrás, o impeachment de Dilma parecia inevitável. Até então, toda a atenção da mídia oligárquica brasileira era dirigida exclusivamente à presidenta. Mas gradualmente as atenções se voltaram para quem estava organizando o processo de impeachment, para quem se fortaleceria e para seus motivos reais.

Então, tudo mudou. Agora, o impeachment de Dilma, embora ainda seja provável, não parece mais ser completamente inevitável. O Globo, informouna semana passada que dois senadores anteriormente favoráveis ao afastamento da presidenta, já admitem rever seus votos por conta das gravações recentemente publicadas dos ministros de Temer. Além disso, a Folha de S.P. ontem também noticiou que diversos senadores estudam a mudança de seus votos. É importante observar que os meios de comunicação brasileiros pararam de publicar pesquisas de opinião sobre a popularidade de Temer e sobre o impeachment de Dilma.

Enquanto isso, a hostilidade a esse ataque à democracia cresce tanto no Brasil, quanto no exterior. Os protestos contra Temer têm crescido e se intensificado. Mais de vinte deputados britânicos revelaram que consideram o impeachment um golpe. Mais de trinta deputados do Parlamento europeu reivindicaram o fim das negociações comerciais com o governo “interino” brasileiro por considerá-lo ilegítimo. O grupo anticorrupção Transparência Internacional anunciou que interromperia os diálogos com o novo governo até que a corrupção fosse eliminada dos novos ministérios. Em uma reportagemsobre a demissão do Ministro da Transparência nesta semana, o New York Times descreveu-a como “mais uma derrota para um governo que parece se atrapalhar em sucessivos escândalos poucas semanas depois de Temer substituir Dilma Rousseff.”

 

The incumbent president, Michel Temer, during inauguration ceremony of the presidents of public banks and Petrobras, in Planalto Palace, in Brasilia, capital of Brazil, on 1 June 2016. Fearing used the event to take stock of the first days of his interim government and highlight the "scenario" in which he found the country after the departure of President Dilma Rousseff. Photo: ANDRE DUSEK/ESTADAO CONTEUDO (Agencia Estado via AP Images)Photo: Agencia Estado/AP

 

Mas nada explica melhor a perigosa farsa que as elites brasileiras tentam impor à população do que o líder por eles escolhido ser impedido de se candidatar ao cargo que acabou de assumir, devido a uma condenação judicial. Não se trata apenas da destruição da democracia no quinto país mais populoso do mundo, tampouco da imposição de uma agenda de privatizações e ataque aos pobres para benefício da plutocracia internacional. Trata-se do fortalecimento de operadores corruptos – desrespeitando as regras democráticas – cinicamente conduzido em nome da luta contra a corrupção.

* * * * *

Ontem, em um evento no Rio de Janeiro com David Miranda e Nathalie Drumond, fui perguntado – como sempre sou nestes eventos – sobre o possível envolvimento dos Estados Unidos na mudança do governo. Abaixo, um vídeo com 4 minutos de minha resposta:

 Glen Greenwald
  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O Colapso de Credibilidade de Michel Temer – Agora Inelegível Por Oito Anos

Employment Lies. The Manipulation of US Unemployment Data

June 4th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

June 3, 2016.   Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the US economy only created 38,000 new jobs in May and revised down by 59,000 jobs the previously reported gains in March and April.

Yet the BLS reported that the unemployment rate fell from 5.0 to 4.7 percent, a figure generally regarded as full employment.

The May jobs increase only covers a small fraction of the monthly growth in the labor force and, therefore, cannot account for the drop in unemployment.

Moreover, the BLS reported that the labor force participation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points, bringing the decline to 0.4 percentage points over the past two months. Normally, a strong labor market, such as one represented by a 4.7% unemployment rate, causes an increase in the labor force participation rate.

The question becomes:  How real is the 4.7% rate of unemployment?

The answer is: Not at all.

The unemployment rate dropped because people unable to find jobs ceased looking and are no longer counted as being in the labor force.  If you are unemployed but not considered part of the labor force, you are not included when unemployment is measured. The BLS says that in May there were 1.7 million Americans who “wanted and were available for work,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

In other words, the unemployment rate is a useless measure of unemployment, just as the consumer price index no longer measures inflation.  What were once useful statistical measures have been converted into good news propaganda.

Another inconsistency is the BLS report that, despite the low unemployment rate, in May almost another one-half million Americans were forced into part-time jobs as full-time employment was not available.

The average work week is no longer 40 hours.  The shrinkage of the average work week to 34.4 hours (May) is another reason for declining real median family income. Assuming 3 weeks of vacation, a 34.4 hour work week is 274.4 hours less per year. At $20 per hour, for example, a 34.4 hour work week produces $5,488 less annual income than a 40 hour week.

The loss of annual income is greater for many.  The average is a result of shorter and longer work weeks. The shorter work weeks that pull down the average are not full-time jobs and therefore do not receive health and pension benefits.

Just as Washington and the presstitute media lie about everything else, they lie about the economy.

The United States of America has beeen reduced to a House of Cards whose foundation is lies.

How long can it stand?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Employment Lies. The Manipulation of US Unemployment Data

Climate Change Censorship: Australia and UNESCO

June 4th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Censoring climate change and its reporting is a big business, notably among fossil fuel obsessives and those in denial. It continues to fulfil a role in the policies of Australia’s Turnbull government.  Even after the demise of Tony Abbott last year, his successor continues to scrub his own environmental credentials from his profile.  As he does so, an assortment of weasel words have found their way into the political argot: “innovation”, “growth” and a host of other empty treats.

Despite lauding various efforts to pursue “clean energy” (PM Malcolm Turnbull decided to reverse the previous leader’s decision to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation), environmental politics in Australia remains a dirty business.

Turnbull demonstrated as much in March by announcements that he would remove funds from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and replace it with a new, slogan rich “Clean Energy Innovation Fund”.  Turnbull is particularly keen on copyrighting innovation, a substitute, he finds, for actual de-funding strategies for the essentially redundant environment portfolio.

As Giles Parkinson noted in March, “the move to de-fund ARENA and create a ‘new’ fund using money already allocated to the CEFC is nothing but a sleight of hand, and an elaborate ruse by Turnbull to save more than $1.3 billion and get his new pet word ‘innovation’ included in a financing scheme.”[1]

This is only one portion of Turnbull’s strategy. Another is a no mean effort at censorship in an attempt to minimise the effects of climate change on Australia’s environment.  The current prime minister is, after all, a businessman, and while he lauds efforts of Australian “innovation” in solar energy, ironically much of it being done in other countries, he is also happy to remove references to climate change when needed.

Guardian Australia scored something of a coup on this tendency in obtaining the Unesco report on tourism and climate change at the end of last month.  Titled “World heritage and tourism in a changing climate,” it was modified to incorporate Australian objections.

The draft report, to that end, looks somewhat different to its final form.  One had just to ask the lead author of the report, Adam Markham of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who expressed profound shock at “the reasons the Australian government gave for why they pressured Unesco to drop the Australian sites.”[2]

Portions removed in the final report include reference to the dangers posed to the Great Barrier Reef.  “The biggest long-term threat to the GBR today, and to its ecosystems services, biodiversity, heritage values and tourism economy is climate change, including rising sea temperatures, accelerating rates of sea-level rise, changing weather patterns and ocean acidification.”[3]

The section concluded that “without a comprehensive response more in keeping with the scale of the threat, the [reef]’s extraordinary biodiversity and natural beauty may lose its world heritage values.”

In addition to this excision came two other sections.  The Tasmanian wilderness, for one, receives no mention as being under threat, despite the appalling fires in early 2016.

David Bowman, professor of environmental change biology at the University of Tasmania noted the “root cause” behind the fire season as being “the record-breaking dry spring and the largely rain-free and consistently warm summer, which has left fuels and peat soils bone dry.”[4]  Far from seeing the Tasmanian fires in isolation, their severity had to be considered as part of “a global pattern of increasing destructive fires driven by extreme fire weather.”

Dr. Michael-Shawn Fletcher of the University of Melbourne would similarly observe in February that the frequency of bushfires in Tasmania had become exceptional.  “My conviction,” he gloomily noted, “is that the current trend is evidence of anthropogenic forces.”[5]

The response from the Tasmanian Liberal premier, one that Turnbull has aped, was to deny that there was any serious problem.  The fire, he claimed in February, burned some 1.2 per cent of the world heritage zone.  While “not insignificant […] it could have been much worse.”[6]

Environmental groups disagreed in what became a public relations war of images on forest destruction. “It’s damn ordinary,” shot back the premier, “that you’ve got environmental activists almost gleefully capitalising on images, naturally caused, which could inflict significant damage on our brand, our reputation.”[7]

The deleted section on Tasmania in the Unesco report is cognisant of the “2013 assessment of climate change threat [which] identified the same habitats as at high risk from greater fire frequency and drier conditions, with likely catastrophic implications for fauna.”  The calamitous fires of January 2016 bore out those “dire predictions”.

Warnings about Kakadu national park similarly vanished in the penultimate report. “Climate change threatens Aboriginal traditional use by altering the ecosystems of the vast wetlands of Kakadu and raising temperatures to a level likely to lead to more intense fire regimes.”

Brands, reputations, labels, and management.  Do not kick up a fuss and damage reputations.  Those are the guiding words and principles in the Turnbull environmental protocol.  Rather than providing genuine policy, these constitute the fundamentals of managing decline.  And, in that universe, if profit can be made along the way, so much the better.

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


Notes

[1] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/turnbulls-sleight-of-hand-on-clean-energy-investment-63202

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/revealed-the-report-on-the-great-barrier-reef-that-australia-didnt-want-the-world-to-see

[4] https://theconversation.com/fires-in-tasmanias-ancient-forests-are-a-warning-for-all-of-us-53806

[5] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/study-links-tassie-fires-to-human-induced-climate-change/7193830

[6] http://www.smh.com.au/environment/pr-war-over-fires-in-tasmanias-world-heritage-area-takes-to-the-air-20160212-gmstxz.html

[7] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/greenpeace-to-use-tasmanian-forest-fire-vision-in-campaigns/7160482

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Climate Change Censorship: Australia and UNESCO

Going Forward from B to A? Proposals for the Eurozone Crisis. The Introduction of “Fiscal Currencies”

June 4th, 2016 by Massimo Amato

After reviewing the main determinants of the current eurozone crisis, this paper discusses the feasibility of introducing fiscal currencies as a way to restore fiscal space in peripheral countries, like Greece, that have so far adopted austerity measures in order to abide by their commitments to eurozone institutions and the International Monetary Fund. We show that the introduction of fiscal currencies would speed up the recovery, without violating the rules of eurozone treaties.

At the same time, these processes could help transition the euro from its current status as the single currency to the status of “common clearing currency,” along the lines proposed by John Maynard Keynes at Bretton Woods as a system of international monetary payments. Eurozone countries could therefore move from “Plan B,” aimed at addressing member-state domestic problems, to a “Plan A” for a better European monetary system.

*    *    *

Below is the Introduction of this article. To Read complete article click here (pdf)

An increasing number of economists and commentators believe that the current (spring 2016) economic policy path that some eurozone countries are following will undermine the rules of the European Monetary Union (EMU) originally put in place in the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (subsequently modified in 2007 by the Lisbon Treaty, and in 2011 with the “Sixpack”) and eventually lead to either the collapse of the European cohesion or a period of prolonged stagnation.

The rules of the EMU structure were based on two assumptions, both of which have proven to be untenable. The first was the belief in a smooth transition from simple agreements among different national states to a federation, creating the “United States of Europe,”1 which would not only complete the institution of a common market, but also share the same constitution, thereby ensuring common rights for the “European citizen,” with a common foreign policy, an integrated fiscal system, and a common currency. Had this belief been realized and accomplished smoothly with the approval of the population of each member state, then the currently missing institutional mechanism of a unified fiscal structure large enough to be an automatic stabilizer facilitating federal fiscal transfers to member states at times of need would have made the eurozone sustainable. This process was, however, stopped by the ill-conceived proposal for a European Constitution, which, albeit ratified by several member states, was rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005, de facto halting any further attempts to put the United States of Europe project on strong foundations.

The second assumption inspiring the logic of the Maastricht Treaty, and its subsequent modifications, was based on the ordo-liberal economic dogma that prevailed then and continues to this day, mainly by Germany’s dictum. It asserts that markets: would self-adjust towards full employment; the central bank would be independent from governments and be concerned only with price stability; and national governments would be responsible for fiscal policy subject to the Treaties’ guidelines; guarantee property rights; and smooth the functioning of markets irrespective of the asymmetries in their real economies. This (German) logic inspired the 1 The “Ventotene Manifesto” is believed to be one of the major sources of inspiration for a plan towards a federation of European countries; see Spinelli and Rossi (1941). 3 structure of the ECB, avoiding the possibility of acting as lender of last resort to governments when needed; it also inspired the limits to government deficits and debts codified in the Maastricht Treaty, which were made even more stringent in the Sixpack.

In the public debate that ended with the signing of the treaties, it became clear that the adoption of a single currency would mean the renunciation of domestic authorities having any role in the formulation of monetary and exchange-rate policies. This, in the face of asymmetric shocks, would imply divergence and crisis handling among member states in accordance with their underlying real economies. To spur growth in regions lagging behind, a system of fiscal transfers—the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund—was therefore established. Moreover, some provisions were later included in the treaties to force countries to take corrective actions, reversing their surplus positions whenever their current account balance exceeded a given threshold relative to their GDP. The mechanism of fiscal transfers, however, is insufficiently funded to act as an automatic stabilizer at the level experienced in the US (with a sufficiently large federal budget in the order of 15 percent), while the requirement for surplus-reversing— introduced only in 2011 as part of the “Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure”—has not been applied thus far, given the large external surpluses of Germany and other countries of the European North.

The euro’s faulty architecture was thus well-known before its implementation started (Papadimitriou and Wray 2010, 2012).2 In a prescient contribution, Godley (1992) wrote:

[…]if all these functions are renounced by individual governments they simply have to be taken on by some other authority. The incredible lacuna in the Maastricht programme is that, while it contains a blueprint for the establishment and modus operandi of an independent central bank, there is no blueprint whatever of the analogue, in Community terms, of a central government.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we briefly review the historical evolution of the imbalances that led to the prolonged stagnation of the eurozone periphery and the outright 2 On the other hand, there was a hope that countries not satisfying the requirements for an optimal currency area would converge to such requirements once the common currency had been adopted; see Frankel and Rose (1998), among others. crisis (which dominated in Greece) that has stimulated a debate on how to reform the eurozone institutions—a plan commonly referred as “Plan A,” or “Plan B” —focusing instead on implementing domestic policies that do not necessarily terminate the current Eurozone agreements. There is also the option of which countries in deep crisis, such as Greece, may very well choose to abandon the euro, possibly precipitating the collapse of the Eurozone monetary system. In this paper, we will not investigate this possibility. Instead, in the third section, we present a proposal, based on Papadimitriou (2016) and Papadimitriou, Nikiforos, and Zezza (2014, 2015a, 2016), for the introduction of a domestic fiscal currency compatible with keeping the euro as legal currency. In the fourth section, we discuss how some simple changes in the functioning of the ECB Target2 system may lead the way to a more sustainable monetary architecture; in the final section, we offer our conclusions.

Notes

1. The “Ventotene Manifesto” is believed to be one of the major sources of inspiration for a plan towards a federation of European countries; see Spinelli and Rossi (1941).

2. On the other hand, there was a hope that countries not satisfying the requirements for an optimal currency area would converge to such requirements once the common currency had been adopted; see Frankel and Rose (1998), among others.

 Read complete article (pdf)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Going Forward from B to A? Proposals for the Eurozone Crisis. The Introduction of “Fiscal Currencies”

Video: The Kibeho Refugee Camp Massacre in Rwanda: The Real Story of What Happened There in 1995

June 4th, 2016 by Ann Garrison

In the dawn of the day of April 22nd, 1995, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) seized the moment to perpetuate one of the largest massacres in the history of the Rwandan tragedy in Kibeho camp, home to more than 100,000 internally displaced refugee.

Today, this tragic episode has been kept silent. The Rwandan government has officially only recognized 338 victims, ‘’mostly Interahamwe militia and former genocidaires”. The massacre that took place in Kibeho in 1995 remains a non-existing event for the Rwandan authorities.

The current regime in Rwanda has managed to falsely represent the slaughter that took place in Kibeho as a military operation that slightly escalated in history and curricular books. As such, thousands of children, women and men have indeed become forgotten in Rwandan history. (JambonNews.net)

 Video montage and source: Ann May Simone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Kibeho Refugee Camp Massacre in Rwanda: The Real Story of What Happened There in 1995

Hybrid Wars. Breaking the Balkans, Country Scenarios

June 4th, 2016 by Andrew Korybko

(Please read Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV before this article)

The research thus far has thoroughly explained the Hybrid War context in the Balkans and the specific regional vulnerabilities that are ripe to be exploited. This penultimate section will thus briefly elaborate a bit more on each country’s Hybrid War scenarios and segue into the final chapter that talks about the dire threat facing the Republic of Macedonia, the most susceptible of all the Balkan states to this new form of warfare.

Slovenia

In and of itself, there aren’t any endemic factors inside Slovenia that place it at risk of a Hybrid War, but it is in danger of suffering destabilization as a result of the “refugee” crisis. The work earlier touched upon the regretful incident where a group of out-of-control “refugees” torched their own camp, showing everyone that all it takes for pandemonium to break out among the ‘human caravan’ is just a few impassioned provocateurs. Thankfully the authorities were able to re-establish control before panic and/or aggression took hold over the rest of the crowd, but the incident brought to light a serious threat that will remain so long as there are “refugees” transiting the Balkans.

_86367350_migrant_journeys_turkey_to_germany_624_v9Slovenia itself isn’t expected to be targeted by the US or any other external actors intent on provoking a Hybrid War, but as is seen by the camp incident, certain Hybrid War triggers don’t always need an external patron to provoke. The conditions for a “refugee” riot are already well established and intimately interwoven into the entire ‘migration’ experience, partly owing to the unpreparedness of the transit states to accommodate such massive human inflows and also due to the composition of the “refugees” themselves (mostly young, military-aged men with pro-Islamist sympathies). There exists the distinct possibility that an unforeseen spark somewhere along the “refugee” transnational ‘chain’ could lead to a larger riot that takes the victim state’s government off guard (whether it’s Slovenia or whichever other transit state) and triggers a larger regional crisis in its wake.

Still, it seems as though Ljubljana has prepared for this scenario in light of the “refugees” burning their own camp and has called in the EU to assist with security measures. Slovenia obviously sacrificed a degree of its sovereignty in this request, but it’s questionable exactly what level of independence it even had prior to this (being such a gung-ho EU and NATO member), so in a sense it’s somewhat of a moot point to even consider (although nonetheless relevant to mention). Therefore, the country’s real vulnerability to Hybrid War stems not so much from an unplanned incident that could lead to a larger “refugee” riot on its own territory, but from the humanitarian consequences of this or another Hybrid War scenario happening ‘upstream’ in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, or the Republic of Macedonia, and thus sending an even more overwhelming flood of people surging across its borders and obliterating what little institutional defenses it has against such an asymmetrical destabilization.

Croatia and Bosnia

Croatia shares the same risks of a “refugee” riot as Slovenia does, and it is equally susceptible to being caught in the middle of any mayhem that the ‘migrants’ decide to start. That being said, just like with Slovenia, Croatia is not a target for American-provoked Hybrid Wars, and although understanding that its allies’ stability is in jeopardy due to the “refugee” scheme, Washington wants to avoid any intentional scenario for weakening its Western Balkan partners to the advantage of the Central Balkans. If taking down the Central Balkans through a provoked “refugee” riot on their territory means that adverse consequences will come to the Western Balkans, then so be it, the American strategy goes, so long as the multipolar megaprojects are endangered enough to justify the collateral damage to the US’ Lead From Behind proxy in Zagreb.

Moving beyond the “refugee” riot scenario and to speak more concretely about another Hybrid War risks that could feasibly result in Croatia’s involvement (whether as an active player or a passive participant), the US would like to destabilize Bosnia in order to draw Belgrade into a quagmire. This was discussed at length earlier so there’s no need to repeat all the details, but the general idea is that militant Dayton Revisionism on the side of Sarajevo (at the behest of its Western patrons) is already leading to tensions with Banja Luka, and if the current trend keeps pace, then relations between the two federal entities will significantly deteriorate in the coming year. Croatia’s self-interest in this course of events is simple –the Croat-Muslim entity will seek as many external partners as possible while it prepares for a possible conflict with Republika Srpska, and the most geopolitically ‘natural’ one for it to reach out to is Zagreb, which has its own historical ambitions for actualizing Greater Croatia.

Map_Bih_entitiesSpoken about in this context, Croatia is trying to turn Bosnia’s Croat-Muslim entity into its proxy domain, and this becomes more realistic as preplanned and provoked tensions are ratcheted up against Republika Srpska. Under this structural arrangement, Croatia has more involvement in supporting a Conventional War in Bosnia than a Color Revolution and/or Unconventional War, meaning that it’s not necessarily partaking in a full Hybrid War-facilitating role, although its actions would likely contribute to the destabilization of the whole country. The reader should remember that one of the US’ main strategies is to lure Serbia into the Bosnian boiler and trap it in a quagmire that leads to a full state collapse with time, an objective which didn’t succeed in the early 1990s but now seems to have a higher probability of occurring, provide of course that the US can trick Serbia into a conventional intervention there. Just as the US used the killing of Russians in Donbass to try and produce an emotional and shortsighted response from Moscow, it may try to emulate the same pattern in Republika Srpska with the Serbs in order to goad Belgrade into a geopolitical trap, possibly even going as far as also using a Color Revolution to set the patterned chain of events into motion.

Serbia

This brings the conversation around to Serbia and the very real threat that it faces from multidirectional Hybrid War threats. Continuing with the tangent that was touched upon above, Belgrade must be cautious in getting drawn too deeply into Bosnia’s spiraling problems (initiated entirely by the US’ initiative, one should never forget), but at the same time, it must strike a balance between avoiding a ‘Reverse Brzezinski’ and simply capitulating its geopolitical position. Therefore, when forecasting Serbia’s role in any forthcoming Bosnian destabilization, it would be wise for Belgrade to initially limit its support and refrain from over-emotionally getting drawn into the conflict, no matter how provocative the ‘bait’ is (e.g. Sarajevo trying to do to Republika Srpska what Kiev was doing in Donbass [to completely different situations, but the general idea is the same]). Other than that general guidance, there is nothing else solid enough to be suggested until any conflict actually breaks out, as the detailed specifics will dictate more concrete action at that time.

Moving along, the preceding chapter outlined the threat quasi-separatist threat that could emerge from the ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina, prodded on as they’d be by nationalist actors such as Jobbik. It is here where a more ‘traditional’ Hybrid War threat could become manifested, since there’s the possibility (however vague it may seem at this time) for the community there to utilize Color Revolution technologies in agitating for some sort of more clearly defined identity separateness from the Serbian state. Each Color Revolution scenario makes use of different on-the-ground tactic s and slogans that apply most efficiently to the given situation, but it could be foreseen that language rights might play some sort of role in the future. The uniqueness of the Hungarian language is a source of pride for its speakers and is an integral part of the Hungarian national identity, and nationalist provocateurs could push the people into organizing around it in order to give their nascent movement a unifying factor. For example, one possible scenario could be see Jobbik-organized Hungarian Serbs demanding the creation of a so-called “Hungarian Regional Autonomy” in the northern reaches of Vojvodina, using a language dispute as pretext for galvanizing the demographic. It probably wouldn’t descend into its own Hybrid War, but a faulty state response to this emerging and premeditated crisis could severely worsen relations with Hungary and possibly jeopardize the Balkan megaprojects.

_44442019_-400Rounding out the rest of Serbia’s Hybrid War threats, it’s necessary to touch upon the socio-political vulnerabilities of Sandzak and the Presevo Valley. Both southern regions are inhabited by a large amount of Muslims that could be provoked into resentment against the titular Serbian majority, obviously being aware of how tactically success this was for the Kosovo-based Albanians (despite leading to a failed ‘state’ shortly thereafter). The US’ goal here isn’t in recreating another ‘geopolitical Kosovo’, but in simply stirring up problems between minorities and the titular Serbian majority. That fact that the “refugee’ ‘chain’ flows through the Presevo Valley is a strategic advantage in this respect since it means that the transnational travelling ‘caravan’ could be manipulated into being a catalyst for this scenario, per the “refugee” riot risk that was earlier discussed. Both areas’ proximity to the occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo means that they’re within relatively easy reach of ISIL-affiliated terrorists that have taken nest in the NATO protectorate. The most dramatic scenario would be if these individuals found a way to arm the “refugees” prior to or immediately after a planned incitement against the Serbian authorities, which could then be joined by the Presevo Valley Muslims (provided that their preconditioned for such action).

Montenegro

This tiny country is being sucked into NATO against the wishes of the majority, and it’s already produced a sizeable amount of domestic instability as a result. Interestingly enough, the conditions inside Montenegro might give way to a form of Hybrid Warfare, albeit not one that’s conducive to American foreign policy goals and which would be entirely organic if it occurs. Aside from the previously discussed interests that the US has in Montenegro, its geostrategic territory is envisioned to host a part of the long-cherished Ionian-Adriatic Pipeline, a prospective project to link the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP, supplied by Azeri gas) northwards to Croatia and help Zagreb become a sizeable energy hub in conjunction with its planned (but ultra-expensive) LNG terminal in Krk island. From an American perspective, NATO absolutely must occupy Montenegro in order to perpetually guarantee the pipeline’s viability, and any legitimate opposition against its proxy Djukanovic cannot be tolerated since it’s unknown whether his democratically elected replacement will want the project or not. For these reasons, NATO is bunkering down behind Djukanovic and supporting the violence that he’s unleashed against the protesters. Their calculation is that a non-NATO, non-Djukanovic Montenegro would be an unreliable transit state, hence why it must be avoided at all costs.

Seen from this analytical vantage point, the West’s blind support for the unpopular Djukanovic is ironically more harmful to its soft power than anything else, since their backing of him amidst the violent crackdown and non-democratic NATO push has tarnished their reputation in the eyes of their nominal supporters. The rapid polarization that has transpired since the government’s preemptive September announcement about joining the military bloc seems to be irreversible and deeply rooted, with impassioned anti-NATO and anti-Djukanovic supporters unlikely to ever backtrack on their ideals. Now that Podgorica accepted Brussels’ invitation for membership, there’s an ever-dwindling window of opportunity for the protesters to act in stopping what appears to be a looming fait accompli. Pushed to act, they might very well make a determined push against the government sometime in the next year or two before Montenegro’s formal admission, which could see a renewed spate of protests rocking the country and simultaneously taking place in other cities besides just the capital. There’s no doubt that Djukanovic will react savagely to this development and that NATO will stand fully behind their prospective member in offering political, material, and intelligence support, meaning that the lines for a possible civil war are clearly set in the sand, provided of course that the opposition is serious enough about continuing their protest movement in the face of such violent adversity.

untitledOrganized protest marches all throughout the country could scare Djukanovic into thinking that a Color Revolution is being hatched against him, and in some ways, the political technologies and tactical applications could very well mirror this traditional Western regime change strategy. The pivotal difference, however, is that no foreign patron is supporting the Montenegrin opposition and the entire anti-government movement is purely endemic and founded on grassroots resistance. Because of its genuine origins, it might perhaps be in a greater position to succeed in its regime change goals than any of the artificial Washington-engineered Color Revolutions before it due to its literal adherence to the precepts laid out in Gene Sharp’s “From Dictatorship To Democracy”, and this frightens Djukanovic and his NATO patrons to no end. Therefore, they’ll take the most severe and violent course of action if they feel ‘threatened’ by a critical mass of anti-government protesters converging on the capital, and the bloody and chaotic aftermath could motivate the oppositionists to take up arms against the government and wage a guerrilla war. If it comes to that, then Hybrid War would have come to Montenegro in the one way that the US could never have expected it to, and its successful completion (the replacement of Djukanovic with a democratically elected and multipolar leader) would throw a serious wrench into the US’ strategic plans for the Balkans.

Albania

Albania is a very peculiar country when it comes to Hybrid War, since it perpetually needs to continue pursuing one abroad in order to prevent its emergence at home. The full details of this theory are contained in the author’s earlier worked called ““Greater Albania” Is A Myth To Preserve The Country’s Unity”, but to summarize, the guiding concept is that the Gheg and Tosk differences in Albania are a lot larger than most observers realize, and that without the unifying ideology of Greater Albania, the separateness between these two dialect groups would quickly come to the surface and create political complications for the perpetually impoverished state. In order to deter this from happening, Albanians are periodically reminded of the irredentist crusade that lies at the heart of the government’s post-Cold War legitimacy.

Typically, Greater Albania is evoked whenever Albania itself is closest to a serious domestic crisis authorities see the need to trot it out as the ultimate distraction. This happened during the 1997 economic crisis when Greater Albania was directed against the Serbian Province of Kosovo, and again in 2015 when the deteriorating economic conditions inside the country gave rise to tens of thousands of EU-destined migrants and the parallel revival of the KLA in Macedonia. Neither case is coincidental, and it’s argued that without the driving force of Greater Albania to unify and distract them, then the distraught citizens of Albania would direct their negative energy towards the government and unintentionally provoke the chaotic conditions where the Gheg and Tosk divide could take on political dimensions.

Albania_declared_Catholics_census_2011What’s also important to mention (and is argued in the aforementioned source article) is that Albania is one of the few countries in the world where Christianity actually grew since the end of the Cold War. This is attributable to Catholic missionary activity heavily active in the northern part of the country, and amidst any domestic political uncertainties, it’s possible that this extra element of identity (Christian Albanians) could come to the fore as the national identity begins to disintegrate with the rise of Gheg and Tosk. Making matters even more complicated would be if Turkey’s Neo-Ottomanism continues its Balkan lurch and Ankara succeeds in pressuring its junior proxies in Tirana to mildly support (or at least make their country conducive to) social Islamism. This could produce tensions with Albania’s rising Christian minority, traditional atheists, and secular Muslims, and might turn out to be the key catalyst for dismembering the Albanian national identity. With all these competing identity factors just below the country’s social surface, and each of which are capable of emerging during prospective anti-government protests amidst the economic crisis, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that Tirana’s elites are once more resorting to the myth of Greater Albania in order preserve their positions, and this will be discussed more thoroughly when addressing the Republic of Macedonia.

Greece

The US must strike a real tricky balance when dealing with Greece, since it wants to destabilize it enough to preempt Balkan Stream and the Balkan Silk Road, while at the same time not doing anything to offset the TAP. However, if it came to it, then Greece and the TAP could be sacrificed so long as doing so was thought to guarantee the destruction of the multipolar megaprojects, although this of course is the failsafe, last-resort option that the US would only pursue if it was in a desperate enough position (e.g. Hybrid Wars don’t break out as planned in Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia). The two tools used to achieve the strategic unbalancing of Greece and meant to place it in a position of perpetual servitude are the “refugee” crisis and the fierce left-right divide.

“Refugees”:

The “refugee” crisis was spoken about at much length before, and it could potentially affect Greece in the same manner as the other downstream states that were earlier discussed. The key difference, however, is that Greece practically doesn’t involve itself in any useful capacity in dealing with the “refugees”, meaning that there are less ‘opportunities’ for them to get distraught and lash out against the authorities. Truth be told, Greece pretty much has an ‘open-door’ policy when it comes to “refugees”, emulating in many respects the “wet foot, dry foot” policy that the US has in place for Cubans. In both cases, if an individual is intercepted at sea, then they’ll likely be sent back, or at the very least, not allowed to freely continue their mission to wherever it was that they intended to reach further afield. But, if they physically touch foot in American, or in this case, mainland Greek soil, then standard immigration rules are not enforced and they receive a carte blanche to do as they please (with the US actually offering them a package of welfare benefits, unlike the poorer and less politically motivated Greeks). The US does so on purpose in order to lure Cubans away from their country and beget a humanitarian and political crisis (which is slowly gaining steam in Central America at the moment), while Greece has its ‘wet foot, dry foot’ policy due to pure ineptitude, a lack of funds, and misprioritization brought about by the economic crisis.

Migrants%20Mediterranean16x9Regardless of the reasons, the effect is the same – Greece turns such a blind eye to the “refugees” and ignores them to such a point that Athens greatly facilitates all manner of illegal immigration to the rest of Europe (be it of “refugees”, terrorists, or economic migrants), thus giving these individuals no ‘probable’ cause to riot that could be exploited by interested outside actors. They simply don’t exist, and even if a “refugee” finds themselves ‘stranded’ in mainland Greece, they’re a lot more complacent than in any of the other transit states because the society seems to have no issue with these ‘indefinite tourists’, and the standard of living is so low at the moment that whatever funds they brought with them for their journey will be beyond sufficient for a prolonged period of time (keep in mind that many “refugees” have thousands of Euros with them). The only exception in this case is if they’re stranded on an island en route to the mainland, in which case their prospects of ‘freedom of movement’ in Europe are less bright because they still haven’t reached the continent itself yet. Anyhow, this isn’t as significant of a Hybrid War factor because any “refugee” riot on the Greek isles is physically contained and poses no real threat to the government’s stability.

Political Polarization:

The real threat facing Greek stability isn’t “refugees”, but the vicious left-right divide that continues to split the nation. In Greece, there’s no such thing as a ‘political moderate’, since people are either ardently on the left or the right, and this is directly due to the legacy of World War II, the Greek Civil War, and the military junta that ruled the country from 1967-1974. All Greek families were affected to one degree or another by these two traumatic events and their fallout, although the impact they had on each individual was substantially different depending on their political disposition. It’s generally understood that leftist Greeks played a decisive role in the anti-Nazi resistance and were naturally poised for leading the country after the Germans’ defeat, but American and British support for the reinstalled authorities (motivated by nascent Cold War fears) shifted the military balance and ultimately contributed to their loss in the subsequent civil war. Nearly two decades later, the military coup drastically put the country on a hardcore right-wing trajectory and led to numerous instances of state oppression against the country’s leftists. All in all, these three milestone events in Greece’s modern history significantly polarized the country’s citizenry and contributed to the present threat of political violence that returned during the economic crisis.

The sustained economic suffering that Greeks have been experiencing as of late has given rise to a hyper-polarization of the existing left-right divide as seen by the popularization of Syriza and Golden Dawn, respectively. Granted, the current leadership of Syriza has largely moderated its hardcore leftist ideology for financially existential reasons under heavy German and EU pressure, but many of its followers still hold these ideas close to their heart. On the opposite spectrum of things, Golden Dawn is an ultra-nationalist right-wing movement that has made its presence visibly felt over the past couple of years. Ideologically speaking, these two parties couldn’t be more distant from one another, literally representing polar opposites and having incompatible social policies and historical narratives. It’s difficult to gauge the number of Greeks from either side that are fervent enough believers in their cause to possibly engage in street violence to promote or defend it, but in comparative situations of hyper-polarization and extreme economic malaise, there are usually a critical number from each camp that could fulfill this role. Typically, though, it’s more common for right-wing supporters to do this than their left-wing counterparts, so even if Golden Dawn has comparatively less public support and membership than Syriza does, it could in fact have a more forceful street presence in any future unrest.

flags1370At this stage, it’s difficult to predict the exact triggers that could provoke a wave of street violence in Greece, but it can safely be presumed that they would have some kind of connection with the economic crisis and German-enforced austerity. It’s even conceivable that it wouldn’t be Golden Dawn that takes to the streets first, but Syriza supporters revolting against a controversial decision by their party-led government, which in any case would be a magnet for counter-protests such as those by the right wing that could then lead to possible violence. The thing about Greece is that the old wounds of political division run quite deep even to this day, and for Greeks, it’s not just a matter of ideological affiliation one way or another for the theoretical sake of it, but of how earlier beliefs had tangible effects on the livelihood and safety of various family members in the past. This makes the left-right divide a very personal one for many people and testifies to the difficulty inherent in moving past it, to say nothing of how quickly the historical memory of politically targeted violence and suffering could return as a driving factor in aggravating civil relations. Thankfully, Greek society has thus far resisted the political violence that some find so attractive and tempting, but it can’t be assumed that the present state of misleadingly peaceful affairs will last indefinitely. The longer that the economic crisis goes on, the most polarized each camp becomes, and it seems to be only a matter of time before one or the other takes to the street in desperation for their cause and provoke a tense counter-reaction from their ideological rivals.

Hell In The Hellenic Republic:

To bring the Greek Hybrid War forecast to a close, even if there’s a return to political violence in the country, it seems unlikely that this will ever descend into a full-fledged civil war. The most immediate consequence of left-right violence would be the degree that it destabilizes the ruling government, which might feel prompted to call in military support if the situation quickly spirals out of control. One should keep in mind that the preceding event – large-scale political protests by one or both sides – could tactically resemble a Color Revolution depending on the political technologies involved, and that the breaking point might come from a clash between the two and/or an unexpected (and perhaps unprofessionally conducted) military intervention that leads to a spike in civilian-on-civilian and/or state-on-civilian violence.

This doesn’t mean that an Unconventional War between any of the sides is guaranteed to follow, but that point itself is irrelevant in the larger context of American grand strategy because the government would have been already been destabilized to the degree that neither of the multipolar megaprojects is any longer a priority. They wouldn’t in and of themselves be discounted from that point on, but if one or both of them became a political subject of intense debate (e.g. if the Balkan Silk Road would be constructed mostly by imported Chinese laborers instead of unemployed Greeks), then it’s possible that grassroots pressure could be applied in offsetting the entire endeavor or at least ‘halting’ it indefinitely, especially if there’s a government shuffle or outright change in the wake of the street violence. If this happens, then the US would succeed in sabotaging both projects while still holding Athens back from the precipice of full-scale chaos, which would thus allow Greece to still perform its role as a pivotal TAP transit state and remain an integral piece of the unipolar world.

To be continued…

Protesters-gesture-and-wa-004

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.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hybrid Wars. Breaking the Balkans, Country Scenarios

Muhammad Ali: Anti-War Civil Rights Activist

June 4th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

On Friday, June 3, boxing great Muhammad Ali died at age 74 in Phoenix after a lengthy battle with Parkinson’s disease.

Over time, it eroded his motor skills and ability to speak coherently. His wife Lonnie said even though his speech was impaired, “he sp(oke) to people with his eyes…with his heart, and they connect(ed) with him.”

Born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., he joined the Nation of Islam in 1964, rejected what he called his “slave name.” Muhammad Ali replaced it. In 1975, he converted to Sunni Islam after Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad died.

He refused army induction during the Vietnam war, publicly calling himself a conscientious objector, famously saying “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me nigger.”

At his scheduled Houston army induction on April 28, 1967, he refused three times to step forward after his name was called.

Warned he was committing a felony, he stood firm. Arrest followed. The New York State Athletic Commission stripped him of his boxing license and world heavyweight championship title.

Other US boxing commissions followed suit. Ali couldn’t box anywhere for over three years. On June 20, 1967, a jury found him guilty. An appellate court upheld it.

Ali remained free pending the result of his Supreme Court appeal. On June 28, 1971, the High Court unanimously ruled in his favor at a time of nationwide anti-war activism – not based on his claims, because the appellate court gave no reason for denying his right to conscientiously object.

His conviction was reversed. He inspired Martin Luther King to voice public opposition to the war. Famously he called America “(t)he greatest purveyor of violence in the world – my own government. I cannot be silent.”

Ali’s anti-war activism “robbed (him) of his best years, his prime years,” his trainer Angelo Dundee explained.

Perhaps his best remembered quotes were, saying “I am the greatest,” and “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”

He’s less well-known for saying “I know I got it made while other black folks are out there catchin hell, but as long as they ain’t free, I ain’t free.”

Boxing is a violent sport, yet Ali espoused peace and nonviolence, opposed militarism, resisted racial discrimination and injustice.

His star power made his comments resonate. He abhorred the way Washington uses federal tax revenues for war-making, once saying:

I buy a lot of bullets, at least three jet bombers a year, and pay the salary of 50,000 fighting men with the money they take from me after my fights.

Boxing is nothing like going to war with machine guns, bazookas, hand grenades, bomber airplanes. My intention is to box, to win a clean fight. But in war, the intention is to kill, kill, kill, kill, and continue killing innocent people.

Ali used his fame to fight for justice outside the ring, fearlessly speaking his mind publicly. The world’s most famous pugilist became an anti-war, civil rights, nonviolence champion.

A personal note: In the early 1970s while Ali was still active in the ring, I ran into him in the lobby of my office building.

He was with several others at the time. We passed like ships in the night. I didn’t intrude to chat. Looking back, I wish I’d have extended my hand in friendship.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Muhammad Ali: Anti-War Civil Rights Activist

Syria and Iraq: The ISIS Terror Group Launches Full Scale Advance

June 4th, 2016 by South Front

On June 3, the ISIS terrorist group launched a full-scale advance at the rebel stronghold of Mar’e. ISIS units stormed Mar’e from two different axes – from the north and from the south, resulting violent clashes in the area. The Turkish artillery was reportedly conducting a cross-border fire towards the ISIS positions near Talalen, north of Mar’e.

After freeing 17 villages in East to Manbij, the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) took control of Al-Madasah from ISIS on June 1. The control on the Qara quzaq bridge allows the SDF to develop the advance in the area. On June 2, the SDF seized the villages of Jawathah, Al-Hammam, and Al-Bourtoghali.  Now, SDF units and US special operation forces are within 11 km of Manbij.

The operation’s goal is to cut the ISIS terrorist group off from an area the group uses to move weapons and fighters across the border.The territory between the towns of Manbij and Marea is a crucial issue in the fight against ISIS. This area is known as the Manbij Pocket. If it’s captured, ISIS will be isolated from the Turkish border and the last funnel for foreign fighters will be cut off. This will also clear the way for an assault on the city of Raqqa, which is the ISIS self-proclaimed capital.

On June 2, the SAA and its allies liberated the Abu Al-Zayn Mountains and Al-Masbah area along the Salamiyah-Raqqa Highway in the Hama province, deploying at the outskirts of Al-Zakiyah in Western Raqqa. Now, the SAA’s goal is to seize the strategic Al-Zakiyah crossroad. This move will open the way to Tabaqa Military Airport. If it’s seized, the Syrian Arab Air Force will be able to use fighter helicopters actively in the province of Raqqa.

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: 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/

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria and Iraq: The ISIS Terror Group Launches Full Scale Advance

Why You Shouldn’t Romanticize the Black Panther Party

June 4th, 2016 by Dr. Ajamu Nangwaya

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP). It is arguably the most revolutionary and impactful organization created by the African-American liberation struggle. There is much that may be learned from the legacy of the BPP in advancing today’s struggle for freedom, justice and a world that is free of capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism and racism.

The BPP’s explicit commitment to revolutionary socialism was a notable development, which serves as a contrast to the failure of many current activists and social justice organizations to openly embrace socialism. Well, we are not referencing Bernie Sanders’ “socialism” that is really capitalism with a human face. In Eldridge Cleaver’s On the Ideology of the Black Panther Party (Part I), he states that the BPP was committed to Marxism-Leninism or state socialism, while altering it to the Afrikan-American social reality. It should be expected that the ideas of socialism will be adapted to the concrete conditions in specific societies.

It is not enough for the radical forces to assert that they are anti-capitalist. That is a politically negative and vague position. Radicals must name the political ideology to which they are committed. If progressive individuals and organizations appreciate the BPP’s radicalism, they need to seriously explore socialism as the antidote to capitalism.

However, given humanity’s experience with authoritarian or state socialism in the former Soviet Union, the radicals of today would need to move away from the socialism of the BPP that promotes an all-power state and top-down leadership. The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin is on-point here: “Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” Revolutionary socialism must commit itself to ending all hierarchical relations in society. The creation of the classless, stateless and self-organized (communist) society is impossible through the path of state socialism.

The BPP’s survival programmes served as an excellent way for the group to implant itself among the people as well as to organize with them. The BPP provided and/or initiated a comprehensive and impressive range of programmes. Huey P. Newton explains the context for these programmes:

We recognized that in order to bring the people to the level of consciousness where they would seize the time, it would be necessary to serve their interests in survival by developing programs which would help them to meet their daily needs. For a long time we have had such programs not only for survival but for organizational purposes.

There are two things that might become obvious to the reader after going through the book The Black Panther Party: Service to the People Program. Firstly, the programmes were not sustainable. They depended on donations from individuals, businesses and religious organizations or foundation funding to survive and they generated no revenue. If a radical group gets locked into this operational mode, it might degenerate into a social service, reformist political entity. Since revolutionary organizations will not be funded by the state and foundations, they must find other ways to self-finance the struggle for liberation.

Secondly, the BPP’s survival programmes provide a compelling case for self-organizing the people to autonomously operate their projects, programmes or institutions. The people should not just serve as volunteers, advisors or clients. A central role of the organizers is to equip the people with the knowledge, skills and attitude to collectively address their needs. This approach would affirm in practice the slogan “All Power to the People” as well as operationalize participatory democracy within the ranks of the labouring classes.

Furthermore, in the event that the revolutionary organizers and organizations are rendered ineffective by the secret police, regular cops, the court and prison system, as happened to the BPP, the people would be able to continue running their programmes and institutions. The state would have to repress the people, as a whole, in order to stop them from living the resistance through their projects, programmes and institutions.

In this “Age of Vulgar Identity Politics” wherein each oppressed group retreats into the protective cocoon of its particular identity, the BPP’s practice of solidarity could instruct us on the strategic value of principled alliances among different people in society. Uniting the oppressed against the forces of oppression should be seen as a positive and essential action. In the paper Black Panther Party: 1966-1982, Michael Carpini states that “the Black Panther [P]arty connected the self-determinacy of blacks to the self-determinacy of other marginalized groups such as the poor, women, and homosexuals.” The preceding approach of the BPP offers a way forward in uniting the people who experience exploitation.

Some Black nationalists viewed the BPP’s alliance with largely White organizations such as the Patriot Party, White Panther Party and Peace and Freedom Party with suspicion. Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) claimed that the BPP would play the role of cannon fodder for the White left. Ture’s position reflects a lack of confidence in the capacity of Afrikan revolutionaries to enter into alliances with White organizations on an equitable and non-exploitative basis. One would not argue that there will not be difficulties in the coalitions or alliances between revolutionary Afrikan and White organizations. But they must create principles of unity that will guide their actions and processes to deal with the unavoidable problems that will emerge when people work together.

A problematic element of the BPP’s programme was the central role that it gave to the lumpenproletariat as agents of revolutionary transformation. Eldridge Cleaver channelled the BPP’s position on the lumpen when he asserted that “the Lumpenproletariat is the Left Wing” of the working-class in the Afrikan-American nation and the “Mother Country” (the United States). It argued that the working-class had embraced the values and aspirations of capitalism and had carved “out a comfortable niche for itself.” As a result of this development, the unionized working-class is now a part of a “most un-revolutionary, reformist minded movement that is only interested in higher wages and more job security.” The lumpen cannot be the left-wing of the working-class because it has no direct relationship with the world of work.

According to the BPP, the isolation of the lumpen from the means of production and the dominant institutions leaves it with “no choice but to manifest its rebellion in the University of the Streets.” Cleaver and the BPP viewed the urban rebellion as the defining feature of the struggle for emancipation in the United States. This line of thought led Cleaver to declare that “One outstanding characteristic of the liberation struggle of Black people in the United States has been that most of the activity has taken place in the streets.” Since the urban uprisings are episodic and short-lived, the bulk of the organizing work among the Afrikan-American working-class takes place in the spaces in which it lives, works and plays. It is not the members of the lumpenproletariat who carry out the consistent, systematic and ongoing organizing that is the basis of effecting Afrikan liberation. It is the working-class and its radical or revolutionary petite bourgeois allies who shoulder the task of organizing and mobilizing the people.

Cleaver rebuked some Marxist-Leninists when he wrote that “It can be said that the true revolutionaries [the lumpen] in the urban centers of the world have been analyzed out of the revolution.” There is no question about the fact that the ruling-class sees urban insurrections as frightening affairs and that the street becomes the theatre of the oppressed during those infrequent moments of resistance. But Cleaver’s claim that “by and large, the rebellions have been spearheaded by Black Lumpen,” ignored the fact that many of the young people who actively participated in these uprisings were members of the working-class.

According to the March 1968 issued document the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disordersthat reported on the causes behind the 1967 rebellions:

The typical rioter was a teenager or young adult, a lifelong resident of the city in which he rioted, a high school dropout; he was, nevertheless, somewhat better educated than his nonrioting Negro neighbor, and was usually underemployed or employed in a menial job. He was proud of his race, extremely hostile to both whites and middle-class Negroes and, although informed about politics, highly distrustful of the political system.

The typical participant in the rebellions were members of the Afrikan-American working-class and that may be deduced from the fact that he was “underemployed or employed.” It is reasonable to assume that the lumpenproletariat do participate in urban uprisings but given its social characteristics, this class might simply use this festival of resistance in the streets for its own immediate material gains.

The composition of Marx’s lumpenproletariat, as outlined inThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, was definitely not a positive or endearing description:

Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,1 pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème.

The Marxist Internet Archive lists the 21st century members of the lumpenproletariat as “beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables… and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements.”

In the autobiography A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story, Elaine Brown, former BPP Chairperson, incorrectly includes members of the working-class (“black domestics and porters, nurses’ aides and maintenance men, laundresses and cooks, sharecroppers, unpropertied ghetto dwellers”) in the lumpen category. Brown demonstrates a lack of ideological clarity on the question of the people who constitute the working-class. But she did capture key members of the Afrikan-American lumpen: “gang members and the gangsters, the pimps and the prostitutes, the drug users and dealers, [and] the common thieves and murderers.”

How realistic is the expectation that the criminalized lumpen elements, Huey P. Newton’s “illegitimate capitalists,” will serve as agents of liberation? If members of the lumpen are transformed into agents of the revolution by way of methodical political education and disciplined organizing within the working-class, they have essentially committed “class suicide” and, as such, would no longer be lumpen.

The BPP was ill-advised in believing that the lumpen, especially the criminal elements, could serve as a revolutionary force. The lumpen panders to predatory behaviour, self-destructive lifestyle of the street and “militarism.” The lumpen can become a useful part of the revolutionary force, but only after extensive political and ideological education. There is not even a single case, since the emergence of capitalism, of the lumpen serving as the revolutionary force in struggles for liberation. Samuel Farber’s essay The Black Panthers Reconsidered is a good source on the challenges of the lumpen as political actors or activists.

Radical organizations and organizers should be wary of the BPP’s top-down leadership approach. Kwame Ture highlights this problem in his autobiography Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture):

From a SNCC perspective, the organization seemed to me entirely too hierarchical. With a quasi-military chain of command even. Not enough serious political education instead of slogans. Also, there apparently was no time, and absolutely no provision, for full internal discussion within the organization. Instead, “mandates,” “orders,” and “directives” were handed down whether or not folks agreed with or even understood them.

In this climate, to raise questions, even legitimate and sincere ones, was too often seen as disloyalty or as challenging authority, an error to be corrected with physical or ideological intimidation, expulsion, or both… C’mon, “beat downs” may be a common gang tactic, but they are no way to build loyalty, unity, or even discipline in a radical black political movement.

The BPP’s revolutionary legacy offers us many useful lessons in our organizing work to create the just and emancipated world. We should fully explore and draw insights from the BPP’s legacy in other areas such as gender relations in movement organizations, practising principled anti-imperialism, role of armed resistance in the global North and the centrality of systematic political education in preparing organizers. Romanticizing the contribution of the Black Panther Party would make adoring fans of us, and not clear-eyed, unsentimental revolutionaries.

Ajamu Nangwaya, Ph.D., is an educator, organizer and writer and a member of the Network for the Elimination of Police Violence.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why You Shouldn’t Romanticize the Black Panther Party

US Government Experiments on Americans — LSD and MK-ULTRA

June 4th, 2016 by Russ Baker

Russ Baker’s article was originally published in 1999 by The Observer

Author’s Note

What Is the Government Doing Today About Which We Know Nothing?

Continuing our exploration of secret government experiments on American citizens, we now re-publish an article I wrote in 1999 about the CIA and LSD experiments. That article was originally commissioned by the New York Times Magazine, which opted in the end not to publish it. Instead, it appeared in the magazine of the esteemed British newspaper The Observer, the German newsmagazine Spiegel, and in top newspapers in Australia, the Netherlands, and other countries. It never ran in the United States.

*       *       *

Some of his New York neighbours knew him as Paul Galan, some knew him as Paul Stanley. To others, he was just Paul, a quiet man who could usually be found on his doorstep with his dog and an ever-present cup of coffee. But in retrospect, all agree that there was an air of mystery about the man who invariably greeted passers-by with a smile and a friendly word.

When “Paul” died in 1992, people in his neighbourhood gathered in the rain, on the step, to toast him with coffee and pastries from the nearby Ukrainian restaurant. What none of them knew was that their neighbour’s real name was Stanley Glickman, and that he had once been a promising young artist, a dashing American in Paris on his way to great things. But then a most peculiar event transpired, one that would change his life forever.

Photo credit:  danor shtruzman / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Photo credit: danor shtruzman / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

This coming Tuesday in a US court, Stanley’s past will be the focus of a lawsuit pitting the Glickman family against the US Government. At issue will be exactly what happened in a Paris cafe in November 1952 when, according to the family, a CIA official slipped a large dose of LSD into Stanley’s drink, triggering a psychotic episode and transforming him into a neighbourhood “character” with a secret.

Glickman was born in New York City in 1927, the son of a modestly successful furrier. The youngest of three children, he began showing an aptitude for drawing and painting in his pre-teen years, attending classes outside school and winning many prizes. In the summer of 1951, he sailed for Paris, where he began studies at the Academie de la Grande Chaumiere, and later at the studio of the renowned French modernist Fernand Leger. He also traveled to Florence to study fresco painting, and won a national competition to have one of his paintings hung in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In autumn 1952, he set himself up in a studio on the outskirts of Paris. “My days were spent working in my studio, my evenings usually spent drinking coffee at the Cafe Dome in Montparnasse,” he would later recall. His friends were young people from various countries with whom he got into passionate discussions about ideas, events and plans for the future. He also met and fell in love with Ruth Edelman, a young Canadian making a grand tour of Europe. Her father came to visit, the three dined together, and Mr Edelman pronounced Glickman very suitable for his daughter. The two became so wrapped up in each other that Glickman had trouble concentrating on his work. Reluctantly, he urged Ruth to continue on her tour, with plans to resume the relationship when she returned to Paris.

Man Drinking Cocktail

Photo credit: Quinn Dombrowski / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

One evening soon after her departure, as Glickman was enjoying his habitual coffee at the Dome, he was invited by an acquaintance across the street to the Cafe Select, where they were joined by another group of Americans whom Glickman did not know. Glickman and the conservatively-dressed strangers disagreed over politics, power and patriotism; a heated debate ensued. At length, a fed-up Glickman settled his bill and prepared to leave.

But one of the men insisted on buying him a drink as a peace offering. Glickman, who had been drinking coffee, reluctantly agreed to accept a liqueur, and although the group had been enjoying waiter service, the stranger insisted on getting the drink personally. Halfway through his Chartreuse, Glickman began to feel strange: his perceptions of objects, sounds and dimensions became distorted. This hallucinatory state must have been particularly frightening for Glickman, since it was more than a decade before LSD became easily available and its effects widely known.

At this point, according to an affidavit Glickman filed in 1983, the men around him leaned in, fascinated. One suggested that he was capable of performing miracles. Fearing he had been poisoned, Glickman broke free and made his way home; it seemed to him that shadowy figures were following him. In the morning, he woke to intense hallucinations. The next two weeks found him wandering the streets of Paris in a feverish haze. Seeking to backtrack through this nightmare, he returned to the Cafe Select, sat down at a table and promptly collapsed. Strangers revived him and drove him to the American hospital in Paris.

There, according to medical records, he was given an EEG and a calming dose of sodium amytal. Not so, according to Glickman, who claimed in his affidavit that he received electroshock therapy via a catheter up his penis, and was dosed with what seemed to be more hallucinogenic substances. He panicked and checked himself out of the hospital, but soon had himself re-admitted, remaining for another seven days during which time he believes he was given yet more hallucinogenic drugs. At this point, Ruth Edelman returned from her travels and signed him out of the hospital. She wanted to stay and nurse him, but Glickman told her to go home to Canada because he didn’t want to ruin her life.

For the next 10 months, he remained a terrified recluse in his Paris flat, not painting and barely eating for fear of being poisoned again. His relatives in the US knew nothing about his condition until a visiting friend of the family saw how thin Stanley was and alerted his parents. Almost immediately, his brother-in-law arrived to bring him home. Under a doctor’s care, his physical health slowly revived, but he never regained his mental equilibrium. He avoided old friends. Once an avid student, he stopped reading books.

He never held a steady job, never had another romantic relationship, and never painted again.

“In 1952, the only explanation was madness,” Glickman would later write in an affidavit. Although one psychiatrist suggested that he be institutionalised, Glickman’s family helped him settle into a small apartment in New York’s East Village.

Screaming man

Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Crosa / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

At first he found it difficult even to leave the apartment; every time he urinated, he thought of the catheter and the events at the Cafe Select. But after a while he tried, falteringly, to get on with his life. He cleaned furniture in a local antique shop, filled in occasionally for his sick father at the family shop, designed fabrics, and even opened a small, unprofitable antiques shop of his own.

“He would never really try to sell you anything,” recalls Marilyn Appleberg, a neighbourhood association chairman. “(His shop) was a place for him to be, to socialise.” Just getting through each day seemed a challenge. He would walk his two big red dogs Charlie and Gent, and, after they died, a smaller black one called Kuma. Even in an area known for street characters, he cut a striking figure, with his shock of white hair and a red-and-black silk scarf, knotted like a cravat. But most of the time, he just sat on his step with a cup of coffee. There were two names on his mailbox: Glickman and Galan. Nobody knew for sure who he was. No neighbour ever entered his apartment.

Yet someone else did share Glickman’s secret: his sister Gloria. In 1977, she was watching televised Senate hearings about CIA abuses, chaired by Ted Kennedy, and she called Stanley, urging him to turn on his television.

One of the witnesses described a government drug-testing programme known as MKULTRA, which had used innocent Americans selected as human guinea pigs. “There was no advance knowledge or protection of the individuals concerned,” the witness said.

The CIA’s mandate is to preserve and protect the liberties guaranteed in the American constitution, yet this CIA-sponsored “research” directly violated the Nuremberg Code, established in the years after the Second World War to deal with the “crimes against humanity” committed by the Nazis during their notorious medical experiments. The Code stipulates that patients must give “informed consent” before any experimentation may begin.

The witness before the Kennedy committee went on to justify the CIA’s experiments on grounds of national security. With the Soviets looking into the possible use of hallucinogens as “brainwashing” agents, the United States had to be prepared to fight back even if it meant giving drugs like LSD to unsuspecting American citizens.

‘Harsh as it may sound in retrospect, it was felt that in an issue where national survival might be concerned, such a procedure and such a risk was a reasonable one to take,” he said.

Shortly after watching the hearings, Glickman began seeking answers on his own. He contacted Kennedy’s staff and the office of the US Attorney General, to no avail. He was advised he needed a lawyer, but that would take money. Unable to raise funds on his own and perhaps seeking further catharsis, he decided to write a film treatment.

One day in 1981, the movie Ragtime was filming down the block, and one of Glickman’s neighbours, Dean Corren, was working as an extra in it. Glickman approached Corren and asked him if he would try and get his film treatment to Ragtime’s director, Milos Forman. Corren agreed, and took the story home to read. He was stunned: “There was something about it that defied fiction.” Then Glickman, who had apparently never told anyone outside his family about the Paris experience, told Corren the whole story.

Nothing came of Glickman’s treatment. He was no writer, and as for the story itself, perhaps even Hollywood found it too fantastic. But Corren became intrigued by Glickman’s account, and spent the next five years looking into it. In 1981, on an unrelated trip to Washington, he visited the Centre for National Security Studies and read about the architect of MKULTRA Sidney Gottlieb, the same man who had testified before the Kennedy committee about the policy of spiking the drinks of unsuspecting Americans.

After reading a description of Gottlieb, Corren telephoned Glickman in New York with a question: did one of the men in the cafe, by any chance, have a club foot? Glickman’s response was immediate: he recalled the man who had gone to get him the Chartreuse, and, as the man stood at the bar, noticed that he had a misshapen foot. That’s curious, Corren replied. So does Dr. Gottlieb.

Gottlieb, the antagonist in this drama, is a well-known figure: Norman Mailer devoted a whole section of Harlot’s Ghost, his novelisation of the history of the CIA, to him. With a doctorate in biochemistry from the California Institute of Technology, Gottlieb was a rarity among higher-echelon CIA officials, who tended to be Ivy League graduates with equal parts self-assurance and naivety.

As well as being born with a club foot, which left him with a noticeable limp, the New York native was also plagued by severe stammering. Nevertheless, Gottlieb became head of the CIA’s Chemical Division at 33, and quickly impressed colleagues with his curiosity and energy. “He was one of the most imaginative, creative people I’ve ever worked with,’ says Dr John Gittinger, who worked under Gottlieb and later became chief psychologist in the CIA’s Clandestine Service.

MK-ULTRA Memo

MK-ULTRA Memo Photo credit: Central Intelligence Agency / Wikimedia

In a 1953 memo to a researcher, Gottlieb gave an indication of the kinds of mind control issues he was interested in for both offensive and defensive purposes: “Disturbance of memory; discrediting by aberrant behaviour; alteration of sex patterns; eliciting of information; suggestibility; creation of dependence.”

He seemed driven to excel in the Cold War battle against the Soviets, working with a zeal that Gittinger attributes to guilt that his disability kept him out of the War. Ultimately, Gottlieb would admit that MKULTRA tested an array of techniques and substances on dozens of unsuspecting people, and there may well have been hundreds.

Most striking to all who knew him in those days was the ease with which he overcame his disability. A keen dancer, while travelling, he seized every opportunity to learn new dances and steps, which he eagerly demonstrated to friends and colleagues on his return. When not trying to find out whether a person could be coerced into changing his or her political loyalty, the head of MKULTRA enjoyed life on his Virginia farm, raising goats, Christmas trees and corn.

Ironically, Gottlieb, who has never been willing to discuss his role in MKULTRA in any great detail or to apologise for its excesses, would years later turn to Zen Buddhism and become a volunteer in Aids hospices. He would only grudgingly admit to the Senate committee that MKULTRA was a failure: “In looking backward now, the real possibility of the successful and effective use (of mind control) either against us or by us was very low.”

In the 1950s, though, Gottlieb was sufficiently supportive of unanticipated ingestion of LSD that he personally spiked the drinks of scientists working with him. In one incident, an Army scientist, Frank Olson, was given a massive dose and, in a delayed reaction some days later, ended up jumping through the 10th-floor window of a Manhattan hotel. President Gerald Ford later apologised, and Congress authorised a $ 750,000 payment to the family.

Shortly after finding the CIA documents in Washington, Dean Corren began searching for a lawyer to take up Glickman’s case. At least a dozen firms said no before their luck turned. Then, one after another, firms accepted but later handed the case on when their approaches were thwarted by government obfuscation. Time and again, courts simply took the agency’s word on what information could be safely released from its files. Even 45-year-old documents were not made available without heavy editing.

The U.S. government has over the years issued various qualified denials in the course of seeking to have the case dismissed. In one brief, government lawyers assert that “there is no evidence that TSD (the Technical Services Division, whose Chemical Division was headed by Gottlieb) ever engaged in or funded LSD testing or research overseas.”

But the Glickmans, distrustful of such claims, eventually found someone with impressive credentials to back them up. In 1988, Glickman’s then-counsel Ramsey Clark called Dr Lester Grinspoon, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and one of the world’s leading authorities on LSD and hallucinogenic drugs. Grinspoon had himself tried to get CIA records about the testing programme back in the 1970s while working on a book; he too had been stonewalled. So when the call came from the Glickmans, he readily agreed to examine Stanley.

Grinspoon saw Glickman on several occasions, and spent a good deal of time with him. He examined old film footage of Glickman going to Italy shortly before the events in Paris. “As far as I can tell, Stanley was a very healthy young man,” says Grinspoon. “He’s not a person who could have been said to be mentally disturbed.” Glickman told Grinspoon that, after accepting the fateful drink, he saw the walls in the cafe moving and halos around the lights, and became convinced he could levitate wine bottles on the shelves.

“When he got back to his apartment, he began to feel that the whole world could see through his eyes,” says Grinspoon. “He thought his voice was transmitted back through the radio to the people who were broadcasting. He looked at the lines on his hands and saw all kinds of meaning in them. The colours became bright and intense.” Grinspoon, who has written two books on psychedelic drugs, says this is unquestionably a description of what is commonly known as a “bad trip.”

Bad trips afflict a relatively small number of people, but can be prolonged and cause permanent damage. According to Grinspoon, the personality of the user, the environment in which the drug is taken, the dosage, and whether or not the user is aware that he or she has ingested LSD, all affect the outcome. Giving LSD to someone surreptitiously could seriously aggravate the harm especially in 1952, when few people, even doctors, were aware that such a drug existed. “No wonder he suffered so terribly,” says Grinspoon.

Glickman’s hospital records revealed other intriguing clues. When Glickman collapsed at the Cafe Select, he was brought to the American hospital, where earlier that year the same attending physician had treated Glickman for hepatitis. This fact took on much greater significance for Glickman’s legal team when they learned that CIA files from that period contained a 1951 Swiss research article addressing the effect of LSD on people with hepatitis.

The CIA and Gottlieb were apparently aware that when LSD was given to hepatics, its effect was heightened. A CIA Information Report, summarising intelligence acquired during an 11-month period beginning in November 1952 (when Glickman entered the hospital), notes that “subjects in whom only a slight modification of hepatic function is present make a marked response to LSD.” This sentence might have been written about Glickman himself. Certainly, he would have been an ideal guinea pig.

Another physician listed in the hospital records as having treated Glickman had previously published an article in the Revue Neurologique, describing experiments he had conducted on rabbits using LSD.

Furthermore, the CIA has been forced to admit that there were other cases in which it used foreign doctors for research that was illegal under US law. In the late 1950s, for example, a CIA-funded psychiatrist in a Montreal psychiatric hospital administered an array of drugs and electric shocks to people who had checked themselves in for problems ranging from anxiety to post-natal depression. A long-running lawsuit resulted in payment by the US government of more than a million dollars in total to nine Canadian citizens.

Even assuming Glickman ingested LSD in October 1952, was it the CIA that slipped it to him? It is known that in the summer of 1952, nearly six months before the Cafe Select incident, Gottlieb asked a government narcotics agent named George White to begin testing hallucinogens on unsuspecting citizens.

Nobody but the CIA and the Swiss company Sandoz (which discovered LSD accidentally in 1945) had access to the drug at that time, and Sandoz had agreed to help control the supply by notifying the Agency every time it shipped the substance.

Tests on consenting volunteers were already under way. White, a hard-drinking, fast-living man who had failed in his efforts to join the Agency, worked for the National Bureaux of Narcotics (forerunner of today’s DEA), and was deliberately chosen as an outside operative for the CIA.

He began dosing unwitting guinea pigs in autumn 1952, following his summer discussion with Gottlieb. (He would later, with Gottlieb’s approval, set up safe houses in New York and San Francisco where he played host to prostitutes, drug dealers and their customers and handed the unsuspecting guests drinks laced with LSD.) Records indicate that Gottlieb and White met on 20 October, 1952, in New York and again in Washington on 30 October to discuss the plan to administer LSD and other drugs to unsuspecting targets.

The Glickman team points out that there was plenty of time for Gottlieb to get to Paris, spike a Chartreuse, and be back for his subsequent meeting with White. Gottlieb says he wasn’t in Paris at all in 1952. But both he and the CIA have been unable to locate his passport to verify that. And, more significantly, Gottlieb and his boss, Richard Helms, had in an unprecedented and controversial move ordered all MKULTRA records destroyed in 1973. A few financial records survived, but in the absence of any other documentation, the case is dependent on the defendant’s word against an abundance of compelling, but circumstantial, evidence.

Towards the end of 1992, Glickman’s physical health began to deteriorate. The 62-year-old’s stomach became distended. “I told him a thousand times to go see a doctor,” says Scott Wolfeil, a neighbour. But Glickman would always refuse, saying he did not trust doctors. Finally, he couldn’t even make it down the steps to walk his dog. Eventually, his sister Gloria came with her husband Ed, and despite Glickman’s protestations, took him to a doctor. Weeks later, on 11 December, Gloria called to tell Wolfeil the sad news: his friend Paul had died of heart failure.

The struggle, however, was not over. Gloria replaced Stanley as plaintiff, and the roller-coaster legal ride began once more. Since then, various hearings have left the Glickmans unable to press their case against the government or former CIA director Richard Helms, but they have been given leave to proceed against Gottlieb. And so, after 16 years of legal struggle and nearly half a century of uncertainty, the family of Stanley Glickman will finally get their day in court.

The trial is expected to be brief; it may be over in a week. The Glickman side has continued seeking new witnesses, and surprises are possible, even likely. The government is expected to stress seeming inconsistencies: for example, the fact that Glickman only “remembered” the club foot after being prompted. And there is the matter of the stutter: Gottlieb’s former CIA colleague Dr. Gittinger says that, if Gottlieb had been there, Glickman would have noticed his stutter, something he never mentioned.

Yet every person interviewed describes Glickman as scrupulously honest. “Even Dr Klein, who examined him for the government, would agree,” says Dr Grinspoon, the LSD expert. “He was a straight shooter. He said, yes, yes Gottlieb had a club foot, but he didn’t remember the stutter, and wasn’t going to say he did.”

Glickman’s family and friends believe he would have wanted them to continue the case. “Stanley had no interest in a monetary settlement,” says Grinspoon. “He wanted the American people to know there was an Agency that could act so arrogantly, so irresponsibly towards one of its citizens. He was terribly concerned that the story get out.”

***

P.S. A New York jury decided against the Glickman family. For more on that, see

http://www.salon.com/people/rogue/1999/05/06/cia

P.P.S. In 2012, Olson’s sons filed suit in the US District Court in Washington, DC seeking compensatory damages and access to documents withheld by the CIA. The case was dismissed, but, in the ruling, the judge wrote something very interesting about it:

While the court must limit its analysis to the four corners of the complaint, the skeptical reader may wish to know that the public record supports many of the allegations that follow, farfetched as they may sound.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Government Experiments on Americans — LSD and MK-ULTRA

The New Facade for Regime Change: A Brief History of Humanitarian Interventionism

June 4th, 2016 by Prof. Vijay Prashad

Sitting in his presidential palace in 1991, Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein and his Culture Minister Hamad Hammadi drafted a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). Hussein and Hammadi hoped that the U.S.S.R. would help save Iraq from the West’s barrage. Hammadi, who understood the shifts in world affairs, told Hussein that the war was not intended “only to destroy Iraq, but to eliminate the role of the Soviet Union so the United States can control the fate of all humanity”. Indeed, after the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S.S.R. fell apart and the United States emerged as the singular superpower. The age of U.S. unipolarity had dawned.

A jubilant U.S. President George H.W. Bush inaugurated a “New World Order”, namely “a world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle”. It is the U.S., he intimated, that lives by the “rule of law” and it is the enemies of the U.S. — “actual and potential despots around the world” — that live by the “rule of the jungle”. In this new world, “there is no substitute for American leadership”, said Mr. Bush, and so “in the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability”. Enemies of the U.S. — tyrants and despots — would face the full-spectrum domination of the U.S. military. Mr. Bush’s predecessor, Ronald Reagan, had already wanted to go after “misfits, looney tunes and squalid criminals” who opposed U.S. policy, but he was held back by the U.S.S.R. and by popular liberation struggles in Africa and Latin America. The collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the weakened Third World bloc provided the U.S. with a tremendous opportunity.

The humanitarian facade

George H.W. Bush’s successor Bill Clinton gave the idea of intervention its liberal patina. His National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, crafted the notion of “rogue states” — those countries that remain outside “the family of democratic nations”. Mr. Lake’s examples included Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

shutterstock_357175940 (3)

Orlok | Shutterstock.com

The U.N.-backed sanctions regime sought to weaken Iraq to the point of collapse. No pretext allowed the West to tackle the other countries. It was Yugoslavia, instead, that faced the barrage of “humanitarian intervention”, the new term of art for Western bombardment in the service of protecting civilians. The killing of 45 Kosovar Albanians in Racak in January 1999 provided the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) with the reason to intervene. China and Russia refused to provide U.N. authorisation. It did not stay NATO’s hand, which bombed Yugoslavia into pieces. Older theories to preserve state sovereignty — such as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the 1934 Montevideo Convention — went by the wayside. If the West decided that a conflict demanded intervention, then the full force of Western power would be brought to bear on those whom the West determined to be the “bad guys”. This was the gist of humanitarian interventionism.

What counted as a disaster worthy of intervention? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the UN, acknowledged that the U.S.-driven sanctions on Iraq had led to the death of half-a-million children. “I think this is a very hard choice,” she said, “but the price, we think the price is worth it.” In other words, it was acceptable to allow half-a-million Iraqi children to die in order to maintain the strangulation of Iraq. This death toll — near the low estimate of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 — could be tolerated if Western interests had been served. Later, when Western clients such as Israel and the countries of the African Great Lakes massacred tens of thousands, there was no outcry about genocide and for intervention. It had become clear by the 1990s that the idea of humanitarian intervention had been reduced to a fig leaf for Western interests.

New language for intervention

U.S. President George W. Bush used the language of civilian protection in 2003 to conduct a war of aggression against Iraq. The U.S. war broke Iraq’s infrastructure and state institutions as well as dented the pretensions of humanitarian intervention. The chaos that followed was authored by the regime change war of 2003. Humanitarian intervention now seemed illegitimate — it burned in the fires of Baghdad. Western liberals hastened to refashion the doctrine. They turned to the United Nations, which had been battered by its subordination to Western interests in the 1990s.

Under Kofi Annan’s watch, the U.N. endorsed the new idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. This new doctrine asked that sovereign states respect the human rights of their citizens. When these rights are violated, then sovereignty dissolves. An outside actor endorsed by the U.N. can then come in to protect the citizens.

Once more, no precise definition existed for who gets to define the nature of a conflict and who gets to intervene. Reverend Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, president of the U.N. General Assembly, released a Concept Note that raised questions about the new R2P doctrine. D’Escoto called R2P “redecorated colonialism” and said that “a more accurate name for R2P would be the right to intervene”. The atmosphere for a critique of the West, despite the catastrophe in Iraq, did not exist. Ninety-two U.N. member states — including Brazil, India and South Africa — spoke in favour of R2P. Mexico, India and Egypt did raise the fear of unilateral coercion, although they settled into their seats when reminded that R2P required UN Security Council authorisation. Failure to act in the case of Israel’s punctual bombardment of Gaza drew several comments from member states during the debate around R2P. Singapore’s delegation suggested that “the judgment of whether a government has failed in its responsibility to protect must be taken by the international community without ‘fear or favour’”, a standard that would be difficult to meet given the West’s stranglehold on the U.N. institutions. Rev. Brockmann’s warning was unheeded. Humanitarian interventionism remained in the arsenal of the West.

The test for R2P came not during Israel’s bombing of Gaza in Operation Cast Lead (2008-09), after which a U.N. report found prima facie evidence of war crimes. It came a few years later in Libya. An uprising against the Libyan government in February 2011 provided the opportunity to test R2P. During the Yugoslavian war, the Kosovo Liberation Army had made it clear that they used their fighters in strategic ways so as to provoke a response from the Yugoslavian army; massacres of civilians, they felt, would be the best way to bring in Western air power on their side and turn any conflict to their advantage. The rebels in Libya (and later in Syria) had much the same strategic assessment. If they could elicit state violence, then they might be able to assert their right to international protection. This could only work — as the Palestinians find — if the adversary of the rebels was an enemy of the West. Egged on by the French and the Gulf Arabs, the U.S. pushed the U.N. Security Council to anoint their intervention with an R2P resolution. This is indeed what occurred. NATO went hastily from protection of civilians to regime change. Washington celebrated the success of the intervention — not for Libya’s sake, but for the sake of humanitarian intervention. Finally, the idea had been salvaged.

Preventing mass atrocities

In August 2011, the U.S. government established an Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) to collect intelligence on potential mass atrocities. The APB sought to drive the narrative of what would count as an atrocity and when the West should intervene with the U.N.’s blessings. But the APB has not been able to do its work effectively. What appeared as a successful intervention in Libya was seen in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the BRICS states — as a dangerous precedent. India’s then-Ambassador to the U.N., Hardeep Singh Puri, told me in early 2012 that the Libyan example would prevent any U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria. The BRICS countries now saw that protection of civilians actually meant regime change whose aftermath was horrendous. In other words, it was the Libyan example that proved Rev. Brockmann right and saw the halting emergence of the new age of multipolarity.

Critics of humanitarian intervention are not callous about the horrors of war and genocide. Sovereignty cannot be a shield for massacre of civilians. Yet, at the same time, proponents of intervention watch disasters unfold and then wait till the last minute when a military operation becomes necessary. They do not want to acknowledge the long-term reforms needed to prevent the escalation of conflict into genocidal territory.

The critics worry that humanitarian intervention of the Western variety ignores causes and produces terrible outcomes. Mr. Puri warns, in a forthcoming book, of perilous interventions, namely military actions that lead to chaos and increased suffering. Could there be other interventions that are not perilous? Rev. Brockmann suggested that an antidote to mass atrocities might come from global financial reform, the redistribution of wealth and U.N. Security Council reform. Violence, he argued, is an outcome of grotesque inequality. R2P did not address the protection of civilians from the multiple horsemen of the 21st century apocalypse — illiteracy, illness, poverty, joblessness and social toxicity. These are the authors of crisis. Bombs cannot defeat them.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New Facade for Regime Change: A Brief History of Humanitarian Interventionism

Who Runs Washington? The Long Reach of Big-Pharma

June 4th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

Like a mythical sea monster, the true nature of a Wall Street-London centered global corporatocracy is often talked about but rarely seen. However, on rare occasions, a tentacle breaks the surface and affords the public an opportunity to examine and assess its true, gargantuan dimensions.

Just such a moment occurred when leaked diplomatic letters from the Colombian Embassy in Washington D.C. revealed just how far the United States government is willing to go on behalf of the corporate-financier interests that clearly shape the entirety of its foreign policy.

24234234333

The Intercept would report in its article, “Leaks Show Senate Aide Threatened Colombia Over Cheap Cancer Drug,” that:

Leaked diplomatic letters sent from Colombia’s Embassy in Washington describe how a staffer with the Senate Finance Committee, which is led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned of repercussions if Colombia moves forward on approving the cheaper, generic form of a cancer drug.

The drug is called imatinib [Gleevec]. Its manufacturer, Novartis, markets the drug in Colombia as Glivec. The World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines last year suggested it as treatment not only for chronic myeloid leukemia, but also gastrointestinal tumors. Currently, the cost of an annual supply is over $15,000, or about two times the average Colombian’s income.

The repercussions included threats to derail the $450 million “Peace Colombia” initiative aimed at ending decades of fighting in the South American nation that has claimed nearly a quarter of a million lives.

Leveraging peace and stability in Colombia to force Bogotá to capitulate to pharmaceutical giants like Novartis seems extreme, but upon closer examination of other episodes in recent history – including the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the subversion of Libya and Syria, and admitted US ambitions to encircle and contain China, such coercion is a common feature of the Wall Street-London centric “international order” Washington eagerly promotes.

What is perhaps most appalling about this most recent episode is that Novartis’ “patent” is for a drug developed using public funding over several decades through the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Indeed, in 1990, NIH-funded researcher Dr. Brian Druker began developing model systems integral to bringing “Glivec” to market. He would eventually partner directly with Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) before clinical trials began.

The NIH’s own report, “Fighting Cancer: Ushering in a New Era of Molecular Medicine (.pdf),” would proudly admit:

The NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), along with many other public and private organizations, played a vital role in developing Gleevec®. 

The nature of pharmaceutical giants building fortunes upon publicly funded research, with Gleevec serving as a primary example, was in even the subject of an entire paper published by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the title, “Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules (.pdf).”

Who Runs Washington? 

If corporate-financier interests would jeopardize the peace and stability of an entire nation to maintain a monopoly over a single pharmaceutical – developed not even by them, but by publicly funded research – what would these same sort of corporate-financier interests do if the stakes were infinitely higher – say as high as pushing through a region-wide trade deal that would give such interests monopolies not over a single chemical compound, but over entire industries?

It is clear that elected representatives in Washington, London, and across the rest of the European Union do not represent the interests of those who elected them. Instead, they are clearly subject to and instruments of corporate-financier special interests – not just from across the pharmaceutical industry, but from a variety of industries ranging from finance and banking to big-oil, big-ag, and big-defense.

Understanding this simple truth – demonstrated unequivocally amid Washington’s latest row with its “ally” Colombia – is the first step in formulating a means to rebalance this inequity.

Dealing With Unwarranted Influence 

The leaks revealing Washington’s handling of Colombia, however, provide a valuable potential means of confronting and confounding this immense, unwarranted influence in the immediate future.

The leaks take pressure off the Colombian government itself and put the narrative into the hands of third parties who can more credibly pass on the information to the public. Other nations facing behind-the-scenes coercion might likewise use the “leaked communique” method to take pressure off of themselves, and shift it onto the immense corporate-financier interests bearing down on them.

For the pharmaceutical industry specifically – which has attempted to guard its monopolies under the pretext of providing humanity with invaluable, irreplaceable products and services essential for humanity’s well-being – since pharmaceuticals and other medical therapies are indeed essential matters of life and death, they should be nationalized and the “intellectual property” held by these corporations – paid for by public funding – should be rendered as opensource. This arrangement would be not entirely unlike how the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) approaches space exploration.

For corporate-financier special interests in general, it is essential for both individual nations and local communities around the world to create alternatives to these monopolies and begin the process of systematically and permanently boycotting and replacing them. Not only will this redistribute wealth pragmatically rather than politically, it will create a more equitable balance of power geopolitically.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Runs Washington? The Long Reach of Big-Pharma

Albert Camus and the Prohibition to Prohibit

June 4th, 2016 by Edward Curtin

And, without even noticing it, the inhabitants of the developed countries would pass, with the end of the Cold War, from the nuclear state to the promise of a state eugenics, from the atomic bomb to the genetic bomb – something which would have been impossible without the ‘information bomb.’   –   Paul Virilio, Ground Zero

Not many writers stand the test of time; one that has, whose work has indeed grown more significant since his death in 1960, is the French Nobel Laureate, Albert Camus.

I was reminded of this recently when a festival of performances, films, readings, discussions, and other events was held in New York City celebrating his life and work.  The occasion for  “Camus: A Stranger in the City” was the 70th anniversary of his three month visit to New York City, the only time he came to the United States.

Camus’ sudden death in a car crash, shocking though it was, seems sadly fitting for a writer who spent a lifetime fighting the absurdity of death in all its guises.  That an unused train ticket was found in his pocket only added to the pathos.  He was 46 years old and, in his own mind, only beginning to hit his stride as a writer.

We, however, who are left to contemplate the fate of the man who made the word “absurd” so popular, would do well to consider the exemplary work he left as his legacy.  For as a true artist motivated by an anguished love for the beauty and suffering of human beings, he confronted issues that continue to haunt our world.  In particular, I think his ideas of measure (mesure, f) and limits, rooted as they were in nature and people of flesh and blood, not some abstractions or pseudo-realities, speak to us today in a profound way.

Were Camus alive today, he would no doubt be struck by the constant stream of news reports exemplifying the hubris of our technological rationality, a mode of thinking that has made a fetish out of technology, worships efficiency, and considers any critical protest as irrational.   For Camus was deeply influenced by ancient Greek philosophy.  “Greek thought was always based on the idea of limits,” he wrote.  “Nothing was carried to extremes, neither religion nor reason, because Greek thought denied nothing, neither reason nor religion …. And, even though we do it in diverse ways, we extoll one thing and one alone: a future world in which reason will reign supreme.”

He would be appalled by the arrogance of a nation led by technocratic experts and politicians who have embraced the power of pure reason devoid of values.  Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, the embrace of technical reason, which is innately amoral, has caused many of the problems we seem unable to remedy.  These include environmental catastrophe, high-tech wars, GM foods, drone killings, drug addiction, and nuclear weapons, to name but a few.  For such problems created by technology, our esteemed leaders have technological answers.  The high-priests of this technological complex – organization types all – use the technology and control the information which they then present as “facts” to justify their actions.  The absurdity of this vicious circle is lost on them.  Their unstated assumption: We have a prohibition to prohibit.  If it can be done, it will be done.  We have no limits.

Camus thought differently: “In our madness, we push back the eternal limits, and at once Furies swoop down upon us to destroy.  Nemesis, the goddess of moderation, not of vengeance, is watching.  She chastises, ruthlessly, all those who go beyond the limit.”

Here are just a few recent headlines that would surely have attracted his attention.

“IVF: First genetically modified human embryos ‘could be created in Britain within weeks.’ “ (The Independent, 1/13/16)

“Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome” (New York Times, 5/14/16)

“In Search For Cures, Scientists Create Embryos That Are Both Animal and Human” (NPR, 5/18/16)

GM babies, the manufacture of babies without biological parents, part-human part-animal creatures – these are on the drawing board.  While the elite media report these developments, they try simultaneously to discount the possibility that these technological discoveries will ever become realities.  Yet average people sense otherwise: that the theology of technological “progress” operates according to the law of the prohibition to prohibit. Can do, will do.

Camus, who grew up poor and in love with nature, would no doubt see in these developments our bewitchment by the Promethean god of reason and progress.  God being dead since we have murdered him – as he was fond of quoting Nietzsche – our scientists and political leaders think of themselves as gods.  “We have conquered in our turn, have set aside the bounds, mastered heaven and earth.  Our reason has swept everything away.  Alone at last, we build our empire upon a desert.”

But of course the scientists think otherwise. “I don’t consider that we’re playing God or even close to that,” claims Jason Roberts, a bioethicist at Arizona State University. “We’re just trying to use the technology that we have developed to improve people’s lives.”

Of course such rationally organized experts in a technocracy never say that what they are doing harms people’s lives since their reasoning is circular.  What they “have developed” must be good and for the improvement of humanity since they developed it out of good intentions. That they might have developed something pernicious is beyond their ken.

Thus Camus might ask: what, anyway, is a bioethicist?  Are ethics something you go to school for?  Are they a specialty?  Are they tacked onto a person?

The three headlines quoted above are about birth, how to control and manipulate it.  Birth’s conjoined opposite, death, has traditionally been the other limit to human control.  It, too, has come to be seen by the technocrats as simply another obstacle to be overcome. The high-tech guru Ray Kurzweil is one among many high priests of the scientific/technological faith for whom death is simply another limit to surpass.  They expect to accomplish this in the relatively near future.  That they are serious would make Camus grin or grimace with irony.

For Camus, as for so many of our greatest writers of the past, his work revolved around the issue of death and the human need to face it lucidly.  That meant not explaining it away or justifying it; in short, not presuming to know the unknowable but accepting limits to human knowledge.  That was – and is – a tall order in this “century of fear,” as Camus dubbed the 20th century (an appellation perfectly apt for the 21st as well), but which also could be called the time of knowledge lust, the time in which human presumptuousness has reached new heights.

The uncanny Romanian born writer, E. M. Cioran, author of The Trouble with Being Born, presciently wrote in 1973 that “when we have worn out the interest we once took in death, when we realize we have nothing more to gain from it, we fall back on birth, we turn to a much more inexhaustible abyss.”

This turn to birth has happened, and Camus would notice.  I think he would feel compelled to link the current technological obsession to control birth with the inevitability of death, and would have linked both to our prohibition to prohibit.  Nothing is off-limits today, since there are no limits to be off.  People who think they are gods have none.

For in our great uncertainty, we have sought knowledge, not wisdom, as an end in itself.  Afraid of the loss of God and the traditional consolation of personal immortality, we have, through our scientific and technological obsessions, transgressed ancient limits and usurped the traditional power of God over life and death.  “While the Greeks used reason to restrain the will,” Camus wrote, “we have ended by placing the impulse of the will at the heart of reason, and reason has therefore become murderous.” A world verging on nuclear annihilation is the logical consequences of such scientific willfulness.  Avid for the conquest of totality, we have become the children of excess.

Camus would take note of Barack Obama’s speech on his visit to Hiroshima.  He would note the great irony of the President of the only country that has used nuclear weapons – the ultimate technological achievement of a society unmoored from limits – saying that “death fell from the sky and the world was changed.”  Yes, death just fell.  No one dropped nuclear bombs to kill as many people as possible.  No one was responsible.  Things happen. Death falls.

Camus would observe with Gallic irony the use of an abstraction by a technocratic leader whose hubris knows no limit; who, while saying that the souls of the victims “ask us to look inward,” is outwardly overseeing a trillion dollars investment in new nuclear weapons and continuing the Bush administration’s pursuit of a working ABM system.  He would note the hypocrisy of Obama’s statement that “we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them [nuclear weapons],” as he embraces them and provokes Russia with military moves into Eastern Europe.

It is worth noting that with the invention of nuclear weapons, the power over birth, life, and death so many people believe belonged to God, was commandeered by those who invented the weapons.  No doubt to “help people.” With that bit of technological magic, they became as gods.  The sacred canopy that once gave people religious consolation was replaced by a mushroom cloud in a symbolic transfer of unimaginable consequences.

The temptation to simplify existence through the use of abstractions and ideologies was Camus’ great enemy.  In an age of relativism and rampant nihilism masked as belief, he discovered the existence of a human nature, an affirmation that demanded limits to human activity.  In The Rebel he dethroned the various impulses toward divinization and absolutism that he saw in Western history.  Evil is ineradicable; one must rebel against it, not become it by playing God.  The impulse to become a God leads to nihilism and murder.

Absolute faith in the rightness of one’s cause, whether it be political or religious or a fusion of the two, lay at the root of this mania that inevitably led to violence.  The alternative to such absolutism was the modesty of the rebel, the rebel being one who is in perpetual revolt against injustice and human degradation but who is unwilling, in the name of truth and righteousness, to place the end before the means and destroy what one is supposedly trying to save.  For such admonitions Camus was attacked by the left and the right.

War, capital punishment, murder, suicide – forms of death-dealing – were his themes.  He opposed all in the name of an acknowledgement of ignorance that recognized human limits.  In the name of an insane reason – the modern God – we have turned our backs on this world and strike out for the heavens “until the atom too bursts into flames, and history ends in the triumph of reason and the death agony of the species.”

It was Einstein who is alleged to have coined the term “information bomb” used by Paul Virilio in the epigraph above. Virilio claims that the computer generated information age with its constant whirligig of an overload of “facts” and “news” has created a technological fundamentalism destructive of social memory and clear thinking.  Speed being essential to this mode of existence, it becomes nearly impossible for people to grasp the technological rationality behind it since they are so caught up in it.  A “caste of technology monks” has invented a mode of communication that knows no limit, “eluding any precautionary principle, the systems of information transmission have become bombs which keep on exploding in people’s minds, generating ever more complex and extensive accidents, creating that “uncanny identity which always makes it seem that actions are reported before they are performed, often the mere possibility of an action.”  Such a dizzyingly disembodied experience of the world through a limitless medium that skewers time and space needs Camus to call us back to essentials. In The Rebel he wrote, “Heraclitus, the inventor of the notion of the constant change of things, nevertheless set a limit to this perpetual process.  This limit was symbolized by Nemesis, the goddess of moderation and the implacable enemy of the immoderate.  A process of thought which wanted to take into account the contemporary contradictions of rebellion should seek its inspiration from this goddess.”

In his last novel, The Fall, he left us Jean Baptiste Clamence, a nihilist worthy of our times, a lawyer dedicated to abstract justice, a phony actor who, in the name of absolute sincerity, lies in order to mask his destructive nihilism that knows no bounds. He reminds me of our power elites. His maxim cuts to the heart of our modern madness: “When one has no character, one has to apply a method.” No doubt a reasonable one.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Albert Camus and the Prohibition to Prohibit

There is No U.S. War against ISIS; Instead, Obama is Protecting His “Assets”

June 4th, 2016 by Glen Ford

Two years ago, President Obama said he had no strategy to combat the Islamic State. The U.S. is still not waging war against ISIS or “jihadists of any brand in Syria.” The international iihadist network is a U.S. imperial asset. “The general aim of the Obama administration’s jihadist policy, now deeply in crisis, is to preserve the Islamic State as a fighting force for deployment under another brand name, under new top leadership.”

Washington has no substitute for the jihadists, who have been a tool of U.S. policy since the last days of President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The U.S. claim that it is waging a global “war on terror” is the biggest lie of the 21st century, a mega-fiction on the same historical scale of evil as Hitler’s claim that he was defending Germany from an assault by world Jewry, or that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a Christianizing mission. In reality, the U.S. is the birth mother and chief nurturer of the global jihadist network – a truth recognized by most of the world’s people, including the 82 percent of Syrians that believe “the U.S. created the Islamic State.” (Even 62 percent of Syrians in Islamic State-controlled regions believe this to be true.)

Only “exceptionalism”-addled Americans and colonial-minded Europeans give Washington’s insane cover story the slightest credibility. However, it is dangerous in the extreme for any country to state the fact clearly: that it is the United States that has inflicted Islamic jihadist terror on the world. Once the charade has been abandoned; once there is no longer the international pretense that Washington is not the Mother Of All Terror, what kind of dialogue is possible with the crazed and desperate perpetrator? What do you do with a superpower criminal, once you have accused him of such unspeakable evil?

“It is the United States that has inflicted Islamic jihadist terror on the world.”

President Vladimir Putin came closest last November, after Russia unleashed a devastating bombing and missile campaign against the Islamic State’s industrial scale infrastructure in Syria – facilities and transportation systems that the U.S. had left virtually untouched since Obama’sphony declaration of war against ISIS in September of 2014. The Islamic State had operated a gigantic oil sales and delivery enterprise with impunity, right under the eyes of American bombers. “I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products,” said Putin. “The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon.” Russian bombers destroyed hundreds of the oil tankers within a week, and cruise missiles launched from Russian ships on the Caspian Sea knocked out vital ISIS command-and-control sites.

Putin’s derision of U.S. military actions against ISIS shamed and embarrassed Barack Obama before the world – an affront that only a fellow nuclear superpower would dare. Yet, even the Russian president chose his words carefully, understanding that deployment of jihadists has become central to U.S. imperial policy, and cannot be directly confronted without risks that could be fatal to the planet. Simply put, Washington has no substitute for the jihadists, who have been a tool of U.S. policy since the last days of President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The Islamic State had operated a gigantic oil sales and delivery enterprise with impunity, right under the eyes of American bombers.

That’s why, in August of 2014, President Obama admitted “We don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with ISIS. It had been thirteen years since 9/11, but none of the U.S./Saudi-sponsored jihadists had ever “gone off the reservation,” spitting on the hands that fed them, attacking the al-Qaida fighters (al-Nusra) that are the real force behind so-called “moderate” anti-Assad “rebels,” and threatening to overthrow the Saudi and other Persian Gulf monarchies. Obama had no strategy to combat ISIS, because the U.S. had no strategy to fight jihadists of any brand in Syria, since all the other terrorists worked for the U.S. and its allies.

Obama is still not waging a “war” against the Islamic State – certainly not on a superpower scale, and not nearly as vigorously as did the far smaller Russian forces before their partial withdrawal in March of this year. The New York Times last week published an article that was half apology, half critical of the U.S. air campaign in ISIS territory. The Americans blamed their lackadaisical air campaign on “poor intelligence,” “clumsy targeting,” “inexperienced planners,” “staffing shortages,” “internal rivalries” and – this from a nation that has caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since World War Two – “fear of causing civilian casualties.” However, the Pentagon now claims to have hit its stride, and is concentrating on blowing up the Islamic State’s money, targeting cash storage sites, resulting in reductions in salaries of about 50 percent for ISIS troops. The U.S. military says it has destroyed about 400 ISIS oil tankers. (The Russians claim to have destroyed a total of 2,000.)

As a counterpoint, the Times quoted David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who planned air campaigns in Afghanistan in 2001 and in the Persian Gulf in 1991. He called the current U.S. air campaign against the Islamic State “symbolic” and “anemic when considered relative to previous operations.”

The Russian president chose his words carefully, understanding that deployment of jihadists has become central to U.S. imperial policy.

The U.S. has averaged 14.5 air strikes a day in the combined Syrian and Iraqi theaters of war, with a peak of 17 a day in April. That’s far lower than NATO’s 50 strikes a day against Libya in 2011, 85 strikes a day against Afghanistan in 2001, and 800 a day in Iraq in 2003. It’s way below Russia’s 55 Syrian strikes a day – 9,000 total strikes over a five and a half month period – by an air force a fraction of the size of the 750 U.S. aircraft stationed in the region (not counting planes on aircraft carriers, or cruise missiles).

The numbers tell the tale: the U.S. is not carrying on a serious “war” against ISIS troop formations, which remain aggressive, mobile and effective in Syria. The Pentagon’s claim that fear of inflicting civilian casualties should be dismissed outright, coming from an agency that has killed between 1.3 million and 2 million people since 9/11, according to a 2015 study by Physicians for Social Responsibility.

American excuses concerning “poor intelligence,” “clumsy targeting,” “inexperienced planners,” “staffing shortages,” and “internal rivalries” might even contain some kernels of truth, since one would expect gaps in gathering intelligence and targeting information on jihadists that were considered U.S. assets, not enemies. And, there is no question that “internal rivalries” do abound in the U.S. war machine, with CIA-sponsored jihadists attacking Pentagon-sponsored jihadists in Syria – the point being, the U.S. backs a wide range of jihadists that have conflicts with one another.

The U.S. is not carrying on a serious ‘war’ against ISIS troop formations, which remain aggressive, mobile and effective in Syria.

The U.S. plays up the killing of Islamic State “leaders” and the blowing up of money caches. This is consistent with what appears to be the general aim of the Obama administration’s jihadist policy, now deeply in crisis: to preserve the Islamic State as a fighting force for deployment under another brand name, under new top leadership. The Islamic State went “rogue,” by the Americans’ definition, when it began pursuing its own mission, two years ago. Even so, the U.S. mainly targeted top ISIS leaders for elimination, allowing the main body of fighters, estimated at around 30,000, to not only remain intact, but to be constantly resupplied and to carry on a vast oil business, mainly with NATO ally Turkey. (The U.S. has also been quite publicly protecting the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra, from Russian bombing, despite U.S. co-sponsorship of a UN resolution calling for international war against al-Nusra.)

To a military man like retired general Deptula, this looks like a “symbolic” and “anemic” campaign. It’s actually a desperate effort to balance U.S. interests in preserving ISIS as a American military asset, while also maintaining the Mother Of All Lies, that the U.S. is engaged in a global war on terror, rather than acting as the headquarters of terror in world. To maintain that tattered fiction, at least in the bubble of the home country, requires the maintenance of a massive and constant psychological operations apparatus. It’s called the corporate news media.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on There is No U.S. War against ISIS; Instead, Obama is Protecting His “Assets”

U.N. Blacklists Saudi Arabia Coalition for Killing Children in Yemen

June 4th, 2016 by Tiarne Blackwell

The United Nations yesterday released its annual blacklist for armed groups and states that violate the rights of children during conflict. One new addition to the list includes the Saudi Arabia-led coalition that is currently engaged in a Yemen war, while killing and maiming children [1].

Saudi armed forces started a military campaign In Yemen last year to prevent Iran-allied Houthi rebels who followed the beliefs of Yemen’s ex President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, from controlling the country. As a result of the war, many civilians, including children have been killed during airstrikes [2].

According to a report released by United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon on Thursday, the coalition has been responsible for a number of incidents since the war’s commencement in March 2015. The United Nations recorded a “six fold increase” of children killed and maimed in 2015 in contrast to previous years. The Saudi coalition caused 60 percent of 510 deaths and 667 injuries involving children last year alone [3].

The United Nations report said violations against children in Yemen increased significantly as a result of the escalating conflict.

“In Yemen, owing to the very large number of violations attributed to the two parties, the Houthis / Ansar Allah and the Saudi Arabia-led coalition are listed for killing and maiming and attacks on schools and hospitals,” said the United Nations Secretary General in his annual report [3].

According to the United Nations, groups are blacklisted when they: “engage in the recruitment and use of children, sexual violence against children, the killing and maiming of children, attacks on schools and / or hospitals and attacks or threats of attacks against protected personnel, and the abduction of children” [2].

Other groups, such as the Houthis, Hadi forces and pro-government militia have been on the list for several years, and are labeled as “persistent perpetrators” against children’s rights. However violent the coalition has been in in the past, this is their first time being blacklisted by the United Nations [3].

DR Congo, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and Somalia were some other governments also included in the report. The US was mentioned indirectly, but the report faulted a US attack on a “Doctors Without Borders” hospital in Afghanistan and blamed it on “international forces.” While the US admitted to the attack, they denied it was a war crime. Although they are large contributors to the Saudi-led war against Yemen, this has never been mentioned in a United Nations Report [4].

Israel and Hamas were also not present in this year’s report, the inclusions of which are annual “hot topics” for debate.

Notes 

[1] “UN Adds US-Supported Saudi Coalition to ‘List of Shame’ for Killing Children in Yemen”, Nadia Prupis, Common Dreams, June 3, 2016.

[2] “U.N. adds Saudi coalition to blacklist for killing children in Yemen”, Michelle Nichols, Reuters, June 2, 2016.

[3] “UN blacklists Saudi Arabia-led coalition for ‘killing and maiming’ children in Yemen air strikes”, Lizzie Dearden,Independent, June 3, 2016.

[4] “Saudi Arabia Blacklisted By UN For Killing Children In Yemen”, MintPress News Deak, MintPress News, June 3, 2016.

Tiarne Blackwell is a final-year journalism student who is trying to make her mark in the world. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.N. Blacklists Saudi Arabia Coalition for Killing Children in Yemen

Brazil Revolts as Michel Temer Forces Austerity, US Dirty Tricks Exposed

June 4th, 2016 by Sputnik

Michel Temer’s interim government has moved rapidly to reverse 13 years of social programs advanced by the democratically elected Workers Party, despite increased turmoil in his beleaguered administration.

In two weeks, the highly-orchestrated rightwing impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, viewed by many Brazilians as a coup, has been beleaguered by a combination of incompetence by the Temer government and a series of leaked audio files implicating key cabinet ministers in their plotting of the “impeachment” as a means to derail a far-reaching corruption probe.

The façade of Michel Temer’s legitimacy unraveled just days into his administration, when Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo released an audio recording and transcript of a conversation between the country’s Planning Minister, Romero Juca, and oil executive Sergio Machado, discussing how to put Temer into office to “stop the bleeding” from the so-called Car Wash Investigation into petroleum giant Petrobras.

At the time, Juca also served as the president of the Brazilian Democratic Movement, the same political party of the chief participants in the impeachment, Temer, Senate leader Renan Calheiros, and disgraced former lower-house leader Eduardo Cunha. Juca stepped down from office immediately following the release of the news story.

On Monday, it was Fabiano Silveira who became the second official to resign his post in the Temer Administration, after a second leaked recording exposed Brazil’s Transparency Minister, who is tasked with combating corruption, offering advice to Calheiros on how to undermine the Car Wash corruption probe, in which he, along with most of the country’s high-ranking government officials, is implicated.

In the two weeks that Temer’s transition government has held power, it has moved to unravel the country’s social welfare state, eliminating the minister of culture, and has moved to replace regional commitments and the BRICS alliance with renewed deregulated system of trade with the United States. Temer, to many Brazilians is systematically reversing 13 years of policies advanced by the Workers Party.

With the once vibrant South American economic powerhouse reeling under a neoliberal agenda, Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down on Wednesday with Aline C. Piva and Juliana Moraes, of the group Brazilian Expats for Democracy, to discuss what might happen next.

“Brazilians have taken to the streets,” said Piva. “When Michel Temer first assumed control of the government he started a rollback of the social policies that have been in effect for a decade and a half in Brazil. He cut back social programs and he extinguished the minister of culture. In less than one week he rolled back 13 years of social achievement.”

The current administration is evidently corrupt, but what about Dilma Rousseff?

“There are no investigations under Dilma Rousseff’s name for corruption, and there is nothing that would show that she is a corrupt politician,” explained Moraes. “What we are seeing is that the people who are looking to oust her actually have dirty records. The current interim president is supposed to be somebody who is unelectable. He has dirty records, which mean corruption charges against him, so for the next eight years he is not supposed to even be in office.”

She also explained that the recent release of audio files exposing Romero Juca’s coup plot and Fabiano Silveira’s plans to undermine the corruption probe have led to cries for Temer to go, with many protesters labeling him “Golpista” for “coup leader.”

Was this coup orchestrated to force US-backed neoliberal economics on Brazil?

“Absolutely,” said Piva. “The first day of Temer’s administration made clear that the neoliberal agenda is back in place in Brazilian politics.”

The activist explained that Temer’s administration has moved to revoke or offset existing commitments in Latin America, the developing world, and with Russia and China in favor of a push toward US-centric bilateral trade deregulation.

“Jose Serra, the new minister of foreign affairs, in his first speech, made very clear that Brazil is going to roll back the policies that led to more independence in the region,” said Piva.

Moraes took a stronger line, comparing the present situation to the US-backed 1964 Brazilian military coup, noting similar involvement in the proceedings by the US ambassador. “Now we have Liliana Ayalde, the current ambassador to Brazil and the former ambassador to Paraguay in 2008 to 2011, when there was a coup there, who is writing op-ed in the right-wing newspaper O Globo about how Brazil is an essential market for American corporations, a must-play for US business.”

She said that America aims to undermine the multilateral associations established by Brazil’s Workers Party with South American countries, and also looks to fracture the BRICS economic alliance for challenging the domination of the World Bank and the IMF. “Yes, there is some involvement by the US,” stated Ayalde.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil Revolts as Michel Temer Forces Austerity, US Dirty Tricks Exposed

What’s Next in Syria After Ceasefire and Peace Talks Failed?

June 4th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Russia genuinely wants conflict in Syria resolved diplomatically. Otherwise, it can continue interminably.

America wants endless war, Assad ousted, pro-Western puppet governance installed and Syrian sovereignty destroyed.

Intractable East/West positions show no signs of changing. Endless war rages, escalation likely.

So-called cessation of hostilities proved farcical. Peace talks were dead on arrival. Washington and its rogue partners support terrorist groups ravaging Syria. US air power and special forces on the ground aid them.

No so-called moderate rebels exist, one of many Big Lies about Obama’s dirty war, the pure evil face of imperialism, continuing without mercy no matter who succeeds him.

Washington wants Russian airstrikes on Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists halted, according to Sergey Lavrov – so nonexistent moderate rebels won’t be hit.

Moscow calls combating and defeating ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups ravaging Syria top priority. Otherwise, endless war will continue.

“(T)errorism is our common threat, and there should be no doubt about that,” Lavrov stressed. Jabhat al-Nusra is using a pause in attacks on its positions to rearm, regroup and add other terrorist groups to its ranks.

Separately, Al Jazeera reported “Putin may deploy special operations forces on the ground in Syria (to combat terrorists), a move that might be made to ensure ‘a decisive victory.’ “

According to former deputy foreign affairs minister Andrei Fyodorov,

(t)his is under discussion. There are plans for this.

This is a delicate issue for our military. There are serious doubts that any participation by Russia on the ground would be favourable or complicate the negotiation process and lead to further disagreements with the US.

At the same time, unnamed political and military officials believe deployment is needed to defeat the scourge of terrorism.

According to Fyodorov, “(f)rom the Russian point of view, Assad should control 70% of Syria, and that way you can hold elections and they would be favourable for (him). That is why the issue of ground operations is becoming more actual.”

Political analyst Sergey Strokan said Moscow can’t afford to lose Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and commercial hub pre-war, large parts of it destroyed, much of its population displaced.

According to Al Jazeera, “some analysts suggest a ‘Stalingrad’ in Syria is…need(ed)” – a decisive battle to turn the tide and hasten war’s end, “requir(ing) (Russian) ground troops” along with its formidable air power.

Will Washington respond in kind if Russia deploys combat troops to Syria? Will confrontation between both countries follow? Syria already is a dangerous flashpoint. Is something much more serious coming?

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.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s Next in Syria After Ceasefire and Peace Talks Failed?

Credibility of Brazil’s Interim President Collapses as He Receives 8-Year Ban on Running for Office

June 4th, 2016 by Glenn Greenwald

It has been obvious from the start that a core objective of the impeachment of Brazil’s elected president, Dilma Rousseff, was to empower the actual thieves in Brasilia and enable them to impede, obstruct, and ultimately kill the ongoing Car Wash investigation (as well as to impose a neoliberal agenda of privatization and radical austerity). A mere 20 days into the seizure of power by the corruption-implicated “interim” President Michel Temer, overwhelming evidence has emerged proving that to be true: Already, two of the interim ministers in Temer’s all-white-male cabinet, including his anti-corruption minister, have beenforced to resign after the emergence of secret recordings showing them plotting to obstruct that investigation (an investigation in which they, along with one-third of his cabinet, are personally implicated).

But the oozing corruption of Temer’s ministers has sometimes served to obscure his own. He, too, is implicated in several corruption investigations. And now, he has been formally convicted of violating election laws and, as punishment, is banned from running for any political officefor eight years. Yesterday, a regional election court in São Paulo, where he’s from, issued a formal decree finding him guilty and declaring him “ineligible” to run for any political office as a result of now having a “dirty record” in elections. Temer was found guilty of spending his own funds on his campaign in excess of what the law permits.

In the scope of the scheming, corruption, and illegality from this interim government, Temer’s law-breaking is not the most severe offense. But it potently symbolizes the anti-democratic scam that Brazilian elites have attempted to perpetrate. In the name of corruption, they have removed the country’s democratically elected leader and replaced her with someone who — though not legally barred from being installed — is now barred for eight years from running for the office he wants to occupy.

Just weeks ago, Dilma’s impeachment appeared inevitable. Brazil’s oligarchical media had effectively focused attention solely on her. But then, everyone started looking at who was engineering her impeachment, who would be empowered, what their motives were — and everything changed. Now her impeachment, though still likely, does not look nearly as inevitable: Last week, O Globo reported that two senators previously in favor were now re-considering in light of “new facts” (the revealed tapes of Temer’s ministers), and yesterday, Folha similarly reported that numerous senators are considering changing their minds. Notably, Brazilian media outlets stopped publishing polling data about the public’s views of Temer and Dilma’s impeachment.

Meanwhile, opposition grows to this attack on democracy both domestically and internationally. Protests aimed at Temer are becoming increasingly large and intense. Two dozen members of the British Parliament denounced impeachment as a coup. Three dozen members of the European Parliament urged termination of trade negotiations with Brazil’s interim government on the ground that it lacks legitimacy. The anti-corruption group Transparency International announced it wasterminating dialogue with the new government until it purged corruption from its new ministries. The New York Times this week, reporting on the resignation of the anti-corruption minister only 20 days after he was installed, described it as “another blow to a government that seems to limp from one scandal to the next just weeks after Mr. Temer replaced Dilma Rousseff.”

Demonstrators run amid a cloud of tear gas during a protest organized by the Homeless Workers Movement, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Wednesday, June 1, 2016. The movement organized the protest against acting President Michel Temer and in support of suspended President Dilma Rousseff. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

Demonstrators run amid a cloud of tear gas during a protest organized by the Homeless Workers Movement, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, June 1, 2016.

Photo: Andre Penner/AP

But perhaps nothing quite captures the dangerous farce that Brazilian elites are attempting to perpetrate like the fact that their chosen leader is now literally banned from running for the office into which he has been installed because he has been convicted of breaking the law. This isn’t merely the destruction of democracy in the world’s fifth most populous country, nor the imposition of an agenda of privatization and attacks on the poor for the benefit of international plutocrats. It’s literally the empowerment of dirty, corrupt operators — outside of democratic norms — cynically undertaken in the name of combating corruption.

* * * * *

Last night at an event in Rio de Janeiro, I was asked — as I always am at such events — about possible U.S. involvement in the change of government. Here are four minutes of my answer:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Credibility of Brazil’s Interim President Collapses as He Receives 8-Year Ban on Running for Office

What Most Syrians See of Their War: “Living in the Crosshairs”

June 4th, 2016 by Eric Zuesse

Below is a video of what most Syrians are seeing and experiencing of the war, titled “Living in the crosshairs”

The original video link of the May 29th 2016 video English subtitles is here.

It refers to attackers being the “Free Syrian Army” (who were founded by Riad al-Asaad, no relation to Bashar al-Assad — and spelled and pronounced differently — and he was a proponent of a fundamentalist Sunni Syrian constitution). It also refers to (and shows victims of) the “canisters” which the FSA is firing westward, from the Aleppo city area that the FSA controls, into the city’s “Midan District,” which is controlled by the Syrian government.

.

.

The FSA is America’s chosen group of fighters (Barack Obama’s terms for them are ‘the moderate opposition’ and ‘moderate rebels’, but they’re just the people that the U.S. government overtly back — not back covertly like Syria’s branch of Al Qaeda and some other groups). All these groups are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, and, though they often cooperate with one-another, like with Al Qaeda in Syria (called “Al Nusra”), and ISIS (also called “ISIL” and “Daesh”), the groups also occasionally attack each other, because each of the groups is trying to increase its territory and wants to emerge victorious to control all of Syria, or of as much of Syria as possible, in the final settlement.

Virtually all members of each one of these groups are jihadists, but different foreign countries are backing different ones of these groups, and America’s preferred group happens to be the FSA — the group that’s firing these “canisters.”

At 1:46 in the video, the flag of the “Sultan Murad Faction” is being flown; at 1:50 it’s the flag of Al Nusra. So, this time the groups are all working together, because of their shared goal of conquering the Syrian government in the Midan District, which they’ve apparently just done here, at least for the time being. The Sultan Murad group are backed by Turkey (which, under Erdogan, has become a fundamentalist-Sunni country, like the Arab monarchies are, but without the oil). Al Qaeda is mainly backed by the Sauds, U.S. allies against Assad.

Each of these groups is bankrolled by somewhat different financial interests, but all of those interests are united in their desire to overthrow the non-sectarian government that has been ruling in Syria, and that the U.S. CIA has been trying, ever since 1949, to overthrow and replace by a fundamentalist Sunni government (which will favor the fundamentalist-Sunni Sauds, our allies). Though the majority of Syrians have always supported a non-sectarian Syria, various factions of Sunni Islam in fundamentalist-Sunni foreign countries have (especially after the severe 2007-2010 drought in Syria, and the consequent intense “Arab Spring” anti-government movement in Syria during 2011) supplied weapons and fighters to jihadists to overthrow Assad, and they also finance propaganda to recruit jihadists from all around the world, to fight in Syria and maybe become heavenly martyrs in this ‘holy war’ or jihad, against the ‘infidel’ non-sectarian Syrian government, which, moreover, is led by the Shiite Bashar al-Assad — and all Shiites should be killed, according to such fundamentalist Sunni teachings (which originate in, and are led by, Saudi Arabia).

The United States is allied here actually with the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and with their friends the Thani family who own Qatar, and also with their friends the Sabah family who own Kuwait, and also with the six royal families who own UAE; and all of these fundamentalist-Sunni royal families are aiming to supply their oil and gas, and pipelines for oil and gas, selling into the world’s largest energy-market, Europe. Those pipelines would be built through Syria, which is the reason why the U.S. and its Gulf-state allies want to take Syria over, or at least to conquer enough of a strip through what today is Syria, so as to enable construction of these pipelines into Europe.

Whereas America’s goal in this is mainly to strangle Russia, which is the biggest current supplier of oil and gas into the European market, the main goal of the royal Arab families is to expand their markets, to grab a bigger share of Europe’s energy sales. Pipelined oil and gas tends to be cheaper and therefore more cost-competitive than trucked or shipped oil and gas; so, this is a “pipeline war,” to expand markets.

That’s what the Syrian war is all about. Whereas for America it’s to conquer Russia; for the Arab royals, it’s to supply a bigger share of Europe’s energy-imports. For Turkey, it’s to grab a share of the oil-sales stolen by these jihadists, oil from Iraq and Syria, and also to serve within NATO as the agents of royal Arab families, a bridge between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council. That bridge is a valuable and profitable function to fulfill.

The millions of refugees that are being produced by this war, many of whom are fleeing to Europe, are just the results, basically, of this land-clearing operation in Syria, to get rid of the people who are supporting the current Syrian government, which is allied with Russia, instead of with the U.S. and its allies.

So: those “canisters” are intended to terrify enough Syrians to flee, so that (it’s hoped) enough land can be cleared of population, in order for the desired pipelines to be built.

And Syrians know this. Consequently, not only are the various jihadist groups despised by from two-thirds to around 80% of the Syrian public, but at least 55% of Syrians would vote for Bashar al-Assad to be the country’s leader, in any free and fair election — and Obama knows this, which is the reason why he has strenuously opposed democracy in Syria, and even Ban ki-Moon has (though very quietly) condemned Obama’s position that rejects democracy in Syria. Furthermore, the Syrian people overwhelmingly (by 82%, to be exact) cite the U.S. as being the main source of the immense suffering they face.

In other words: terrorizing the population is good, not bad, from the standpoint of the U.S. and its allies — and many Syrians know this. But the few anti-Assad fighters who loathe ISIS and who have been praised by the U.S. government don’t necessarily know or understand this. The few anti-Assad fighters who, for whatever reason (be it that they’re competing against ISIS, or maybe even that they genuinely detest ISIS) have tried to help the U.S. CIA against ISIS, have even been stunned to find the U.S. government uninterested. It doesn’t make sense to them.

To clear the land, terror is good, not bad; the CIA mustn’t get in the way, and they don’t. It’s one reason why those FSA fighters who had taken seriously the U.S. government’s anti-ISIS rhetoric, have, in many cases, subsequently become disillusioned, and cooperate now with al-Nusra and other such groups, which are only marginally less extremist than ISIS is. At least ISIS isn’t lying to them, like the U.S. government does.

Since the European governments are allied with the U.S., those governments are torn about what to do with the refugees that the U.S.-and-allied operation is producing (and is intended to produce). At least up till now, far more Europeans hate the refugees than hate the U.S. government, and so the problem is merely a political annoyance to EU leaders, not yet a cause for breakup of the Western Alliance (European countries’ alliance with the U.S. government), which still seems strong, and which is still strongly supported by Europeans (including even by the ones who hate these refugees — refugees who are result of that very alliance, which they support).

Though this land-clearing operation creates a nuisance in Europe, it’s far more than that, a life-and-death matter, in Syria. For Arab aristocracies, it’s being done mainly for business (it’s not about ideology, except Sunni versus Shia); but for America’s aristocracy, it’s mainly for power: conquering Russia, by getting rid of Russia’s allies, surrounding Russia, then going in for the kill — unless the Russian government first submits and posts a white flag of surrender (in which case the West will take over Russia’s oil and gas etc., ‘peacefully’).

Perhaps the Western Alliance will continue as it is. But maybe it won’t. For the millions of Syrians in the midst of the hell that Washington and its allies are causing there, a lot might depend on whether it will continue as it is. Without the Western Alliance, the foreign jihadists who are destroying their country would have to leave. Those jihadists are utterly dependent upon the support of Barack Obama, King Saud, Tayyip Erdogan, Angela Merkel, and the other leaders of the Western Alliance. None of those leaders can continue this ongoing invasion of Syria, without the continuing support of their Western comrades. The destruction of Syria is a team-effort. But maybe the team will fall apart before it can achieve the type of victory that’s required for real ‘success’. Which side will give up this war first?

One thing’s for sure: What Syrians see of their war is not going to endear them to The West. And this also means: it’s not going to endear them to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. Will it endear them to the EU? Certainly not if the EU turns them away as refugees. However, if the EU separates from the U.S., then maybe, just maybe, there can emerge favorable relations between Europe and the secular Arabs who have long constituted the majority of Syrians. The problem for them has been the U.S. government and the fundamentalist Sunni Arab royal families. The question then is: Will Europeans continue to be allied with them? Or, if not, then how soon will the Western Alliance break up?

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Most Syrians See of Their War: “Living in the Crosshairs”

Okinawa Responses to Rape and Murder by Former US Marine

June 4th, 2016 by Takazato Suzuyo

A 20-year-old woman missing since late April was found dead on May 16, 2016. The suspect is a former Marine who is a civilian employee of the U.S. military at Kadena Airbase. Local police report that he confessed to the woman’s rape and murder, and told them the location of her corpse. This crime comes barely six weeks after a U.S. sailor assigned to Camp Schwab was arrested for the rape of a Japanese woman in a Naha hotel. Following that crime, Lt. General Lawrence Nicholson, III Marine Expeditionary Force commander, visited Prefectural Governor Onaga Takeshi to ”express my deepest regret and remorse at the incident.”

What General Nicholson called “the incident” is one of more than 500 crimes designated as heinous under Japanese law, including approximately 120 rapes, committed by U.S. forces in Okinawa since it reverted from U.S. military occupation to Japanese administration in 1972. As Takazato Suzuyo points out in her interview below, the 120 reported rapes are only “the tip of an iceberg” since most rapes in Okinawa and elsewhere go unreported.

The April rape and murder was committed on the eve of President Obama’s highly publicized trip to Japan for the G-7 Summit and a visit to Hiroshima for a speech advocating nuclear weapons reductions. Shortly after Obama’s arrival, he held a meeting with Prime Minister Abe Shinzo to discuss the rape and murder in Okinawa. During their stern-faced appearance before the cameras that followed, Abe told reporters “this is an unforgivable crime, and I have expressed our anger.” Obama expressed his “deepest regrets.”

Shimabukuro Rina

Yet official efforts were already underway to downplay and trivialize this latest atrocity as “the Okinawa issue” (沖縄問題), and not the responsibility of the Japanese and U.S. governments for imposing 73% of the American military presence in all of Japan on this small island prefecture. Expressing his hope that the crime would not affect Obama’s trip, Japan’s ambassador to the United States Sasae Kenichiro remarked dismissively that “the Okinawa issue is the Okinawa issue [and] should not overshadow the fundamental objective of the alliance.”

After the March rape, General Nicholson made what turned out to be an empty promise to tighten discipline and prevent a recurrence. Following the rape and murder in April, the 30,000 U.S. troops in Okinawa have been ordered not to drink alcohol off-base or visit clubs and bars.

Conspicuously absent is any mention of proposed changes in the U.S. military presence that might lighten Okinawa’s disproportionate burden of bases. Such was not quite the case after three American servicemen raped a twelve-year-old girl in 1995. Following highly publicized consultations between the U.S. and Japanese governments, it was announced that the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station would be closed. But this turned out to be a bait-and-switch when it was revealed that plans were simply to move what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “the world’s most dangerous base” to another location in Okinawa. Two decades later, with Okinawans resisting the new base construction, Futenma remains open and active.

In the statement and interview below, women in Okinawa reject meaningless apologies and cosmetic curfews, demanding withdrawal of American forces as the only way they can live safely in Okinawa.

Known victims of sexual violence perpetrated by the U.S. military: The tip of an iceberg

An Interview with Takazato Suzuyo on the rape and murder of Shimabukuro Rina

Former US Marine
Kenneth Shinzato, 20 May 2016

The male suspect—a civilian employee of the U.S. military, formerly a member of the U.S. Marines—has been arrested on suspicion of disposing of a corpse. Heinous crimes committed repeatedly because of the presence of U.S. military bases have taken the worst possible form. We asked Takazato Suzuyo of Women Against Military Violence to put this crime in the historical context of human rights violations against the Okinawan people subjected to structural violence form a permanently stationed military.

No end to crimes and accidents involving the US military.

When Okinawa was returned to Japan [in 1972], U.S. bases in Okinawa went from constituting 50 percent of all U.S. bases in Japan to 70 percent. Among them, the vast majority of Marine forces were concentrated in Okinawa, circumstances in which crimes were bound to occur.

18 percent of Okinawa’s land is bases, but this is just the amount of land that is cordoned off with fences where U.S. soldiers and employees live and work. Anyone associated with U.S. forces can pass through the fences freely, unlike us citizens. As a result, all of Okinawa has been sacrificed to the U.S. military. Under these circumstances, most of the victimisation has occurred outside the bases rather than inside them.

Okinawan Women Against Military Violence points out that reported crimes are only the tip of the iceberg.

Since U.S. military occupation of Okinawa ended in 1972, there have been more than 500 heinous crimes, and approximately 120 rape cases, but these figures do not reflect the many victims who don’t report the crimes. There is no official data for the period before 1972. The group Women Against Military Violence has been collecting information about sexual assault from that time based on data from newspapers and documents as well as evidence from the occupation-era Government of the Ryukyu Islands. In the 71 years since the Battle of Okinawa, large numbers of Okinawan women have been victims of sexual violence.

In 2005, when a 10-year-old girl was the victim of an indecent assault, a woman came forward to report that 20 years previously when she was a high school student, she had been raped by three American soldiers. In a letter to the then-Governor Inamine Keiichi she wrote, “American soldiers are roaming our streets unrestricted. Close the bases immediately!” She did not take the case to court, so itis not included among the 120. I wonder how many more victims are invisible in the available figures? There are social factors that stop victims from prosecuting or raising their voices, and I think they enable the crimes of American forces stationed here. We must view these statistics in the context of this reality.

After the rape at a Naha hotel in March, another woman came forward to tell that she hadbecomepregnant after being raped by a U.S. soldier a year earlier. Parents also reported that their middle-school daughter hadbecomepregnant after being raped, but that they had terminated the pregnancy without notifying police.

On May 20, the day after the suspect was arrested, 16 women’s groups held a press conference and presented their written demand to both the Japanese and U.S. governments to close the U.S. bases.

We had discussed the option of treading softly for a time in consideration of the victim and her family because the circumstances of the crime were so heart-wrenching. But when we thought of why it had occurred, we knew we could not remain silent. On the day of the arrest, we decided to get together on very short notice and speak out.


Media coverage

Fear-mongering insinuators on television ask why a woman would walk alone in the dark place where the victim went missing, implying that she was somehow at fault, and obscuring the fact of a heinous crime committed.

Media coverage perpetuates this “rape myth,” not only when the U.S. military is involved, but by persistently questioning the responsibility of sexual assault victims. Ignored is the difficulty of finding one’s voice when overcome with panic. Victims are repeatedly asked how much they resisted, which only compounds their suffering in Japan where the crime of rape is inadequately addressed. The media should report on this issue without invading the privacy of victims, their families, and others.

How we should view official responses from the U.S. and Japan.

While the victim was still missing, I was much surprised to hear Washington’s response emphasizing that the potential suspect was not military, but civilian personnel. On the one hand, officials were denying any connection to the crime, yet clearly stating that the U.S. government was involved.

We now see the emptiness of the pledge by III Marine Expeditionary Force commander Lt. General Nicholson, after the March rape in Naha, to “tighten discipline” and “prevent recurrence;” and, of his claim that Japan and the U.S. military are “good neighbours.” The violence emanating from the bases must end now!

Following each crime, we protest and a temporary curfew is put in placeuntil the uproar dies down. but then another crime is committed. These measures are only an expedient to placate opposition voices. Meanwhile, the U.S. military remains as soldiers stationed here are replaced one after the other.


Denouncing structural violence within the military.

In 2012, the Department of Defence announced that in one year there were an estimated 19,000 sexual assaults inside the U.S. armed forces. The rape of a woman soldier by her superior officer that she reported at a press conference in Washington had occurred on a base in Okinawa.

Soldiers in the Battle of Okinawa, as well as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, have been trained to use their weapons for killing those said to be their enemies. This is true of all armies. Trained to impose their will by force, they are sent to the battles. To wage war, they must lose their humanity. The perpetrators of crimes in Okinawa should be held responsible, yet the unequal Status of Forces Agreement remains in effect and U.S. troops are not reduced. Thus the ultimate responsibility for these crimes lies with the U.S. and Japanese governments. There is no solution other than the withdrawal of troops. The so-called “consolidations and reductions” proposed in the past will only result in redistributions. It is because forces were not withdrawn after reversion that crimes and accidents continue to this day.

May 20, 2016

Mr. Barack Obama, President of the United States

Ms. Caroline Kennedy, United States Ambassador to Japan

Mr. Lawrence D. Nicholson, United States Military Okinawa Area Coordinator (OAC)

Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan

Mr. Yoshihide Suga, Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan

Mr. Takeshi Onaga, Governor of Okinawa Prefecture

Letter of Demand to Mourn the Victim of the Murder linked to a Former U.S. Marine, to Fully Investigate the Circumstances, and to Immediately Withdraw U.S. Military Forces from Okinawa.

Yesterday, May 19, a woman who had been missing since the end of April was found dead, and a former U.S. Marine was arrested as the suspect in her murder. As we face the horror of this crime with rage and pain welling up within us, we grope for words.

But we’ve also begun to hear remarks from those unresponsive to our outrage. They seek to downplay this horrible crime and evade their responsibility, treating it as part of a political game. In such circumstances, we cannot be silent, and have gathered here to raise our voices.

First of all, we mourn the loss of a precious life that has been taken from us. We demand that people who cared for her not be deprived of the time and occasion to remember her.

We cannot calm our raging hearts as we try to imagine the terror and agony she must have felt. Those of us who live in Okinawa are shocked beyond words as we recognize that this could have happened to us. So we stand together in pain and suffering.

Countless times we have been hurt by statements and attitudes that demean the victims of military violence in Okinawa, where the continuing presence of military bases and troops has been forced on us for decades. We strongly demand that the dignity of the victims be respected.

In mid-March this year, a U.S. sailor sexually assaulted a woman at a hotel in Naha. At that time, Lt. General and US Military Okinawa area commander Lawrence D. Nicholson apologized to Okinawa Prefecture’s Governor Takeshi Onaga. “Today, I come here to represent 27,000 uniformed members, 17,000 families, 4,000 civilians, 50,000 Americans.” A mere two months have passed. The U.S. military has failed again to keep its promises to “enforce strict discipline” and “take preventive measures.” Their empty pledges have no credibility.

We have always insisted that the military is an organization of structural violence and does not protect human security in times of war or peace. Military bases and troops have profoundly destroyed human bodies and spirits inside and outside the fences around them. We urge each and every member of the U.S. forces, civilian employees of the military, and their families in Okinawa to join us in mourning and outrage, and to voice your protest in solidarity with us. Please do not act as if this has nothing to do you.

We strongly urge both the U.S. and Japanese governments, US military forces, and Okinawa Prefecture to face the reality imposed by the presence of bases and troops, and to take actions responsibly. For these purposes, we demand the following of them:

  1. We demand that those who have been close to the victim receive a proper apology and care.
  2. We demand that the facts of the incident be thoroughly investigated, and that the perpetrator be rigorously punished.
  3. We demand that all military bases and troops in Okinawa be withdrawn so that we can achieve a truly safe society for the people living here.

Signers:

Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, Committee for One-Stop Assistance Center, Rape Emergence Intervention Counselling Center Okinawa (REICO), Group on Gender Issues, Women’s Groups Liaison Council Okinawa, Japan Womens’ Council I Okinawa, New Japan Women’s Association Okinawa, Okinawa Prefecture Mothers’ Congress Liaison Committee, Okinawa Teachers Union, Okinawa Senior High School Teachers Union, Okinawa Association of Retired Teachers, Okinawa Association of Retired Senior High School Teachers, SEALDs Ryukyu, Mothers Against War Okinawa, Naha Broccoli, Citizens Group Wankara, Peace Camp Okinawa Preparatory Committee, Project Disagree, Concerned Students in Okinawa Prefecture, Nago Council against the Construction of the U.S. On-Sea Heliport and for Peace, No Helipad Takae Resident Society, We Planning, Okinawa Korea People’s Solidarity, WILPF Kyoto, Citizens’ Association for the Study of International Law, Yomitan Network for Opposing the Strength of Torii Station and Making the Best Use of the Municipal Ordinance of Village Autonomy, “Start from here, now”, Okinawan Studies 107, Hawaii Peace and Justice, HOA: Hawaii Okinawa Alliance, las barcas Journal, monaca (Movement of Nonames Against Campus Abduction), Iinagu Women’s Group to Support Mayor Inamine and Nago City Government, Anna Group in Miyako, Tida no Fua Group to Make Peaceful Future for the Islander Children, Okinawa Prefectural Association for Popularization of the Peace Constitution, Okinawa Civil Liberties Union

May 22nd, 2016

Translation by Emma Dalton

Introduction by Steve Rabson

Takazato Suzuyo is a long-time feminist peace activist who has analyzed the interplay between sexism and militarism from the experiences of women in Okinawa and is a founder of Okinawan Women Against Military Violence. Her work has inspired global feminist peace movements for structural understanding of violence against women. She helped create Okinawa’s first rape crisis center to provide hotline and face-to-face counseling to victims of sexual violence. In 1995, she played a key role in mobilizing a mass protest against US military bases in Okinawa following the rape by three US servicemen of a twelve-year old girl.

Steve Rabson is Professor Emeritus, Brown University and an Asia-Pacific Journal Contributing Editor. A former U.S. serviceman on Okinawa, he is the author of The Okinawan Diaspora in Japan: Crossing the Borders Within, University of Hawaii Press.

Emma Dalton. Lecturer, La Trobe University, Australia, is the author of Women and Politics in Contemporary Japan (Routledge).

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Okinawa Responses to Rape and Murder by Former US Marine

The US-UK Financed “White Helmets” “Humanitarian Organization”. Fake Syria “Child Rescue” Videos

June 4th, 2016 by Moon of Alabama

Below is an incomplete list of “rescue” videos showing “kids being rescued” from “rubble” after “Syrian/Russian bombing” prepared by the U.S./UK financed Syria Civil Defence aka the “White Helmets”.

The group was created with the help of Purpose Inc, a U.S. company specialized in regime change NGO operations. Purpose Inc is also behind Avaaz which early on peddled fake war on Syria video propaganda. The White Helmets are financed, like all “Free Syrian Army” media propaganda, by USAID with some $23 million and by the UK Foreign Office with a total of some £23 million. The Netherlands and Japan also donated money to the scheme. The group was build up and trained since mid 2013 by a “former” UK military intelligence operator residing in Abu Dhabi. These are propaganda artists camouflaged as humanitarians.

The “White Helmets” cooperate closely with al-Qaeda. One of its leaders was recently deniedan entry visa to the United States. More details about the group researched by Vanessa Beeley can be found here and here.

Back to the “rescue” videos. That shtick started in late 2013.

After that great marketing success the movie script was serialized. Since then a new version of a “child rescued” video appears every other month or so. Here are just a few of these with all of them following the same script.

This May 25 video is typical. Someone fiddles with professional rescue air pressure mats to show off but those mats are never put to use. Someone else digs with his hands under or behind a concrete slab which has a rather large opening on the side. A smiling and laughing child, totally unharmed and its favorite pupped in hand, is pulled from under or behind the concrete slab to lots of Allah Akbar shouting by the (always male) bystanders. Not shown: kid gets the promised candies for such great performance.

Other typical features of these movies, see this one, are smoke (grenades) in the streets, dramatic but small open fires nearby, dust or some red color on the children’s face or arms. The camera is often used in a hectic, intentionally amateurish first person view, a style extensively developed in the 1999 horror clip Blair Witch Project. Sometimes sounds of additional “bomb impact” bangs or screaming/wailing women are added.

All the above videos are just as (un-)real as the faked “Hero Boy” video showing a “Syrian boy ducking sniper fire to rescue a trapped girl”. Fake “opposition” videos have been a majorfeature of the media war on Syria. These fakes are often easily recognizable as such. We can be sure that the media professionals at the BBC and other outlets know that these are not real rescue scenes. They distribute them nonetheless.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US-UK Financed “White Helmets” “Humanitarian Organization”. Fake Syria “Child Rescue” Videos

Washington Military Planners Have Gone Mad

June 4th, 2016 by F. William Engdahl

To read the Western mainstream media, we would be led to believe that the big, bad Russian Bear, with Vladimir Putin atop, shaking a fistful of nuclear warheads, is confronting the West in the most threatening manner imaginable.

We should believe Russia is provoking at every turn, frothing at the mouth and threatening to invade the Baltic countries and perhaps all Western Europe. We would feel quite justified, as the propaganda spin of Washington claims, to protect America’s European allies from surprise Russian nuclear attack by surrounding Russia with anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems.

So we as citizens in the Western NATO countries have little reaction at all when we read some days ago that the Obama White House announced it had activated the first phase of its anti-ballistic missile defense system (BMD), known as AEGIS, in an air base in Deveselu, Romania. Poland will be next to become activated with Washington’s Aegis.

896744The Aegis Ashore system has been officially put into operation and can already launch SM-3 interceptor missiles. The system includes 24 anti-aircraft SM-3 missiles. At the same time the Pentagon is placing its BMD installations in Japan and South Korea and possibly, Australia, aimed at China. Our perception of world reality is primarily shaped for us by what we read in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or hear on CNN or BBC. We sigh a small sigh of relief that our world is now more secure. Nothing is farther from reality. That’s a grave error.

On May 13, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, alongside officials representing the United States and European NATO members, announced the activation of a new missile system, based in Romania. Stoltenberg announced,

“The United States’ Aegis ashore system is declared certified for operations.”

The new missile network is based at Romania’s Deveselu military air base. The US is also building another new US missile base in Poland. On the same day Deveselu missile base was opened for “business,” construction began on the US missile base near Redzikowo, Poland. Both will operate under the direct command of the US Department of Defense. The Pentagon insists both are intended to protect Europe from Iran (sic!). Shall we call that a pretty pathetic propaganda deception of Washington? I would say so. Both and other systems are directly intended for Russia and those “unarmed” Aegis missiles are potentially nuclear-capable and carry Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles.

The Romanian missile base is positioned less than 400 miles from Russia’s main Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol, Crimea. AEGIS is able to fire short and long-range missiles.i Neither Romania nor Poland will have any say over its use, even though their territory will be the target of any pre-emptive Russian reaction.

Commenting on the event, the New York Times openly acknowledged, “The launch-pad violates a 1987 treaty intended to take the superpowers off their hair-trigger nuclear alter, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, by banning land-based cruise and medium-range missiles with a range from 300 to 3,400 miles.”

US and NATO officials insist that AEGIS is directed against Iran and other small states viewed by Washington as “rogue states,” and poses no threat to Russia or China, something absurd on the surface.

The reality, that Russia is the target of the Romanian Aegis system was made plain by the remarks at the opening ceremony by Romanian President Klaus Ioannis. Ioannis made clear that the new installation is part of broader plans to use his country as a staging area for NATO activities throughout Eastern Europe and the Black Sea.

Of course the Black Sea is home to Russia’s naval Black Sea Fleet in Russian Crimea. Admitting that the real target of the missiles is the Russian Federation, Ioannis called on NATO leaders to maintain a “permanent naval presence” in the Black Sea, as part of a military buildup aimed at making a “credible and predictable presence of Allied forces on the eastern flank.” A glance at the map shos that the only nation bordering the Black Sea not either in NATO or controlled by pro-NATO regimes is the Russian Federation.

During his swearing in some days before the Aegis opening US Army General and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Curtis Scaparrotti, warned that Russia “is striving to project itself as a world power.” He declared that US forces in Europe must “enhance our levels of readiness and our agility in the spirit of being able to fight tonight if deterrence fails.” That sounds pretty “hair-trigger” to me.

Russia made clear it does not greet the news of Aegis deployment with grace or joy. Russia’s President Putin told news agencies, “This is not a defense system. This is part of a US nuclear strategic potential brought on to a periphery. In this case, Eastern Europe is such a periphery…Those people taking such decisions must know that until now they have lived calm, fairly well-off and in safety. Now, as these elements of ballistic missile defense are deployed, we are forced to think how to neutralize the emerging threats to the Russian Federation.”

Russian commentator Konstantin Bogdanov told the New York Times, “The antimissile sites in Eastern Europe might even accelerate the slippery slope to nuclear war in a crisis. They would inevitably become priority targets in the event of nuclear war, possibly even targets for preventive strikes… Countries like Romania that host American antimissile systems might be the only casualties, whereas the United States would then reconcile with Russia ‘over the smoking ruins of the East European elements of the missile defense system.”

Possible Russian response

Many Washington “think-tank generals,” neo-conservative academic hawks and even senior Pentagon professional military generals, more concerned with lobbying for a bigger defense budget than for reality, seem to believe the United States is invulnerable and that their drip-drip escalation against Russia and also China in recent years will restore their vanishing sole superpower global hegemony. It won’t, and in fact may end up obliterating the United States mainland as well as Europe, even if it costs Russians dearly.

A well-respected Cold War military veteran originally from the Soviet Union, later in French intelligence, writing under the nom de plume, The Saker, recently outlined in detail what the United States and NATO can expect from Russia if Washington foolishly continues to escalate US troop deployments on Russia’s doorstep in the Baltics, activates more of its BMD missile defenses–which, by the way, as Vladimir Putin pointed out, are also capable of being easily converted to carry nuclear warheads.

Saker correctly points out that Washington’s AEGIS kinetic BMD system at present is no real military threat to Russia’s military defense capabilities. It is the escalation that they see that alarms Moscow. That, especially since Washington’s February, 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine, and the lock-step obedience as literal vassals, of every EU head of government to Washington orders since, even at their own economic expense.

As a consequence, Russia has begun to prepare for the “unthinkable.” Keep in mind Russians abhor war, having lost perhaps up to 30 million souls in the 1940’s only to see the latecomer, USA, who jumped in in 1944, after the Russians has been taking the vast bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany, claim themselves as “victor.” Yet, through history going back to the Great Schism of 1054, Russians, when forced in existential crises, are capable of defending against all odds.

Saker describes the Russian current response strategy which has been quietly in preparation since the Cheney-Bush Administration announced plans in 2007 for a US BMD in Poland and the Czech Republic:

“The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planning, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:

• The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)

• The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)

• The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)

• The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)”

Three of the four points are especially worth describing in detail. Saker describes the Iskander-M: “The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is…extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground…This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe…”

Then he details Sarmat ICBM, in progress. After noting that during the Cold War, the SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. ” “The RS-28 ‘Sarmat’ brings the terror to a totally new level. The Sarmat is…capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.”

Then Russia’s Status-6 strategic torpedo: “The Status-6 torpedo would be delivered from an ‘autonomous underwater vehicle’ with advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. The vehicle can dive as deep as 1 kilometer at a speed up to 185km/h with a range of up to 10,000km (over 6,200 miles). The Status-6 system can target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frightening configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be…capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.” Saker adds, “Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks…the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to interception.”

The Saker notes there are other equally serious possible Russian responses to any potential existential danger for the motherland, rodina, as Russians call their homeland.

Nuclear Primacy

The active USA BMD project began during Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. In 1972 the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) between Moscow and Washington placed severe limits on development or deployment of Ballistic Missile Defense, but didn’t prevent intense research on such systems. That was what President Ronald Reagan announced to the world in March 1983, when he launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which the press quickly dubbed, ‘Star Wars.’ When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, Washington temporarily shelved full-scale work on deploying their BMD systems. But only temporarily, until the Cheney-Bush Administration in 2001.

Ballistic Missile Defense systems are the final element that could make a US nuclear first strike a possible live option. It would be aimed to take out any Soviet missiles that had somehow survived a US First Strike.

According to the late Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, former head of President Carter’s then-top secret SDI research, anti-missile defense remained in 2009, “the missing link to a First Strike” capability.

Already in 2003 at the onset of the illegal US invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon’s 2003 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that nuclear weapons were here to stay. The declared purpose of US nuclear weapons under the hawkish Cheney-Bush era was changing from nuclear deterrence (MAD) and weapon of last resort to a central, usable component of the US military arsenal. The unthinkable was being thought in Washington.

In September 2015 the Pentagon announced Washington’s decision to station 20 next-generation advanced nuclear bombs of Type B61-12 in Germany, above the protests of leading but impotent German politicians. The B61-12 is in fact a brand new nuclear weapon with vastly improved military capabilities, and the most expensive nuclear bomb project ever. I noted in an article then, that Washington’s deployment of new nuclear weapons in Germany, “is no minor affair as it brings the likelihood of nuclear war by miscalculation between the United States and Russia one giant step closer and it makes the German Republic a direct high-priority target in any such escalation.”

If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I see a psychopath leap at me with a drawn knife clearly aiming to kill, I have a moral responsibility to defend my life with all my means. Likewise, as Kremlin planners carefully monitor the actions of the US military and State Department since declaration of plans to install its Ballistic Missile Defense in NATO Western European lands back in 2007, after the Cheney-Bush Administration unilaterally tore up the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty of 1987 to free itself to deploy its BMD systems, and now with deployments of NATO and US troops and tanks at the periphery of Russia as well as around China, both countries are taking deadly seriously the growing danger to their very existence through an “unthinkable” US nuclear first strike.

As a nice cheery footnote, the state-owned China paper, Global Times, in its May 29, 2016 edition reported that China will send a submarine armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific for the first time. The paper, making an official Beijing Government response to Washington’s military Asia Pivot, added that China has been adopting an “effective nuclear deterrence” strategy, with much fewer nuclear warheads than the West powers. Also, China is the only one among the nuclear powers to announce a no-first-use policy. It means that China’s nuclear deterrence lies in its capability to strike back… As Sino-US tensions build, it is necessary for China to strengthen its capability for nuclear retaliation. It will help with balance in the Asia-Pacific region and enhance the US willingness to seek peace with China.

It is vital that the still sane among us clearly understand how utterly mad, as in insane, not in Mutual Assured Destruction, the Washington missile defense and Russia provoking strategy of the past two decades, especially the past two years, is. Unlike US Defense Secretary Ash Carter, I for one am not willing to end up in a thermonuclear ash heap.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Military Planners Have Gone Mad

Selected Articles: Will America Survive a Trump Administration?

June 3rd, 2016 by Global Research News

Trump-Speech-1

Donald Brings Show Biz to Politics: Will America Survive a Trump Administration?

By Sam Ben-Meir, June 03 2016

At his last and final White House Correspondents’ Dinner, President Obama quipped that “the end of the republic never looked better.” With Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, and Hillary Clinton beginning to steadily lose ground to him in national…

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_2

Trump University and Selling Images

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 03 2016

The problem with the critics of Trump University is that they only provide a veneer for a collective tendency in US political life. Image counts and those with stellar university educations (consider the current President, of constitutional law fame) do…

Hillary Clinton speaking to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference.

Clinton’s Anti-Trump Rant Ignores Her Own High Crimes

By Stephen Lendman, June 03 2016

On Thursday, touting her foreign policy record without explaining its lawlessness, Clinton delivered a 30-minute anti-Trump rant focussing on US foreign policy and US-NATO led wars,  a demagogic litany  devoid of substance, more proof of the danger humanity faces if…

US-Nuclear-War

The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

By Robert Parry, June 03 2016

Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In…

sanders-clinton

Sanders Takes LEAD Over Clinton In California

By Washington’s Blog, June 03 2016

The Los Angeles Times reports:  A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll has found … [Sanders] has battled Clinton to a draw among all voters eligible for the Democratic primary, with 44% siding with him to 43% for Clinton. ***…

usa-élections

The US Elections and the Criminalization of American Politics

By Patrick Martin, June 03 2016

With the US primary campaigns drawing to a close, the two parties of the US ruling elite, Democrats and Republicans, are preparing to nominate candidates who may be subject to criminal indictment between now and the general election.The Republicans…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Will America Survive a Trump Administration?

The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

June 3rd, 2016 by Robert Parry

Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In perhaps the most likely area where nuclear war could break out – along Russia’s borders – Clinton comes across as the more belligerent of the two.

In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.

“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”

That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.

A U.S. government photograph of Operation Redwing's Apache nuclear explosion on July 9, 1956.

Image: A U.S. government photograph of Operation Redwing’s Apache nuclear explosion on July 9, 1956.

Clinton’s neoconservative interpretation of what’s happening in Eastern Europe is so upside-down and inside-out that it could ultimately become the flashpoint for a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

While she sees Russia as the “aggressor” against NATO, the Russians see NATO moving troops up to its borders and watch the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems in Romania and Poland, thus making a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia more feasible. Russia has made clear that it views these military deployments, just kilometers from major Russian cities, as an existential threat.

In response, Russia is raising its alert levels and upgrading its strategic forces. Yet, Hillary Clinton believes the Russians have no reason to fear NATO’s military encirclement and no right to resist U.S.-supported coups in countries on Russia’s periphery. It is just such a contradiction of viewpoints that can turn a spark into an uncontrollable inferno.

What might happen, for instance, if Ukraine’s nationalist — and even neo-Nazi — militias, which wield increasing power over the corrupt and indecisive regime in Kiev, received modern weaponry from a tough-talking Clinton-45 administration and launched an offensive to exterminate ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and to reclaim Crimea, where 96 percent of the voters opted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia?

A President Hillary Clinton would have talked herself into a position of supporting this “liberation” of “Russian-occupied territory” and her clever propagandists would surely present this “heroic struggle” as a war of good against evil, much as they justified bloody U.S. invasions of Iraq and Libya which Clinton supported as U.S. senator and Secretary of State, respectively.

What if the Ukrainian forces then fired missiles striking Russia’s naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, killing some of the 20,000 Russian troops stationed there and inflicting damage on Russia’s Black Sea fleet? What if Kremlin hardliners finally got their way and unleashed the Russian army to launch a real invasion of Ukraine, crushing its military, rumbling through to Kiev and accomplishing their own “regime change”?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Image: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

How would President Hillary Clinton respond? Would she put herself in the shoes of Russia’s leaders and search for some way to de-escalate or would she get high-and-mighty and escalate the crisis by activating NATO military forces to counter this “Russian aggression”?

Given what we know about Clinton’s tough-talking persona, the odds are good that she would opt for an escalation – and that could set the stage for nuclear war, possibly starting because the Russians would fear the imminence of a NATO first strike, made more possible by those ABM bases in Romania and Poland.

Clinton’s Non-Nuclear Wars

There are other areas in the world where a President Hillary Clinton would likely go to war albeit at a sub-nuclear level. During the campaign, she has made clear that she intends to invade Syria once she takes office, although she frames her invasions as humanitarian gestures, such as creating “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.”

In other words, although she condemns Russian “aggression,” she advocates aggressive war herself, seemingly incapable of recognizing her hypocrisies and only grudgingly acknowledging her “mistakes,” such as her support for the invasion of Iraq.

So, on Thursday, even as she made strong points about Trump’s mismatched temperament for becoming Commander-in-Chief, she flashed a harsh temperament of her own that also was unsettling, although in a different way.

Trump shoots from the lip and has a thin skin, while Clinton is tightly wound and also has a thin skin. Trump lets his emotions run wild while Clinton is excessively controlled. Trump engages in raucous give-and-take with his critics; Clinton tries to hide her decision-making (and emails) from her critics.

Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

It’s hard to say which set of behaviors is more dangerous. One can imagine Trump having free-form or chaotic diplomatic encounters with allies and adversaries alike, while Clinton would plot and scheme, insisting on cooperation from allies and demanding capitulation from adversaries.

Clinton sprinkled her speech denouncing Trump with gratuitous insults aimed at Putin and undiplomatic slaps at Russia, such as, “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.”

In short, there is reason to fear the election of either of these candidates, one because of his unpredictability and the other because of her rigidity. How, one might wonder, did the two major political parties reach this juncture, putting two arguably unfit personalities within reach of the nuclear codes?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

United Nations Accuses Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) of Torture

June 3rd, 2016 by CypLive

SBU massively detain and torture applies to the supporters of the militia of Donbass, said Assistant UN Secretary General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic.

Even before the publication of the report of Simonovic said that in some areas’ lack of respect for human rights “from Kiev became a daily and regular, according to RIA” Novosti “with reference to the Times.

The report prepared by the United Nations, describes the hundreds of cases of illegal arrests and ill-treatment of detainees by both the rebels and representatives of government agencies.

However, the report for the first time demonstrates the scale and brutality torture program, which is supported by the Government of Ukraine. The report also speaks of the five secret prisons for detainees, who have created the Ukrainian authorities.

In addition, Simonovic told about specific cases of beatings and torture of detainees who committed the alleged SBU.

In 2005 year Ukraine acceded to the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention against Torture. States parties to the Protocol attending the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture delegation. They have the right without notice to inspect any place.

In late May, the UN experts to combat torture interrupted visit to Ukraine after they were denied entry into certain areas of the country, where, as expected, a number of persons illegally kept secret services.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on United Nations Accuses Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) of Torture

America’s “Sinkhole Wars” for the Greater Middle East

June 3rd, 2016 by Andrew J. Bacevich

Here’s last week’s good news on America’s war fronts: finally, there’s light at the end of the tunnel!

From one end of the Greater Middle East to the other, things are looking up for Washington. A U.S. Air Force drone struck for the first time in Baluchistan province and took out the leader of the Taliban with two Hellfire missiles (whereupon the Pakistani government denounced Washington for violating the country’s sovereignty). The action was taken, President Obama later announced, as part of “our longstanding effort to bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan.” (Admittedly, you may not have heard much about such peace and prosperity recently with fierce fighting raging on Afghan battlefields, the Taliban gainingground, the government in its usual pit of corruption, and the country maintaining its proud position as the uncontested global leader in the production and sale of opium.)

Soon after, the president paid a historic visit to Vietnam and finally put to bed memories of a disastrous American war there in the only way conceivable — by ensuring that American arms and munitions would once again be allowed to flow freely into that country. And while he was at it, he sternly rebuked China (without mentioning it by name) for its actions in the waters off Vietnam.  “Nations are sovereign,” he said, “and no matter how large or small a nation may be, its territory should be respected.”

On the other side of the Greater Middle East, U.S. Green Berets were photographed in northern Syria engaged with Kurdish rebels in fighting aimed at someday retaking Raqqa, the “capital” of the Islamic State. Several of those soldiers were wearing the insignia of the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Forces, or YPG (which the Turkish government considers a terrorist outfit), even as the Pentagon continued to insist that theirs was a non-combat role. In other words — in the good news category — those boots, whatever the photos might seem to indicate, were not actually on the ground. Meanwhile, some genuinely upbeat news arrived in the midst of a little distinctly out-of-date bad news. Members of the U.S. team now conducting the air war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq told New York Timesreporter Eric Schmitt that, despite thousands of air strikes, their predecessors had essentially botched the job, thanks to “poor intelligence collection and clumsy process for identifying targets.” Fortunately, they were now in charge and the results were stunning. The Islamic State was finally being hit in its pocketbook, where it truly hurts, damaging its “ability to pay its fighters, govern, and attract new recruits.”

“Every bomb now has a greater impact,” reported U.S. air war commander Lieutenant General Charles Brown Jr. Yes, after 15 years of American air war across the Greater Middle East, it seems that, from Pakistan to Syria, the Obama administration has finally found the winning formula. If, as Schmitt’s piece indicated, you want confirmation of that, who better to turn to than the very people who have gotten the formula right?  Having no access to similar in-the-know figures capable of throwing light on the subject of Washington’s ongoing conflicts, TomDispatch instead turned to outsider Andrew Bacevich, author most recently of a groundbreaking book, America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, to assess the recent spate of upbeat news from America’s war zones. We sent him directly into that infamous Vietnam-era tunnel of darkness to see what might be glimpsed so many decades later when it comes to the American way of war, and here’s his report. Tom

Milestones (Or What Passes for Them in Washington) 

A Multi-Trillion-Dollar Bridge to Nowhere in the Greater Middle East 

By Andrew J. Bacevich

We have it on highest authority: the recent killing of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan marks “an important milestone.” So the president of the United States has declared, with that claim duly echoed and implicitly endorsed by media commentary — theNew York Times reporting, for example, that Mansour’s death leaves the Taliban leadership “shocked” and “shaken.”

But a question remains: A milestone toward what exactly?

Toward victory? Peace? Reconciliation? At the very least, toward the prospect of the violence abating? Merely posing the question is to imply that U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world serve some larger purpose.

Yet for years now that has not been the case. The assassination of Mansour instead joins a long list of previous milestones, turning points, and landmarks briefly heralded as significant achievements only to prove much less than advertised.

One imagines that Obama himself understands this perfectly well. Just shy of five years ago, he was urging Americans to “take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.” In Iraq and Afghanistan, the president insisted, “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.”

“These long wars,” he promised, were finally coming to a “responsible end.” We were, that is, finding a way out of Washington’s dead-end conflicts in the Greater Middle East.

Who can doubt Obama’s sincerity, or question his oft-expressed wish to turn away from war and focus instead on unattended needs here at home? But wishing is the easy part. Reality has remained defiant. Even today, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that George W. Bush bequeathed to Obama show no sign of ending.

Like Bush, Obama will bequeath to his successor wars he failed to finish. Less remarked upon, he will also pass along to President Clinton or President Trump new wars that are his own handiwork. In Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and several other violence-wracked African nations, the Obama legacy is one ofever-deepening U.S. military involvement.  The almost certain prospect of a further accumulation of briefly celebrated and quickly forgotten “milestones” beckons.

During the Obama era, the tide of war has not receded. Instead, Washington finds itself drawn ever deeper into conflicts that, once begun, become interminable — wars for which the vaunted U.S. military has yet to devise a plausible solution.

The Oldest (Also Latest) Solution: Bombs Away

Once upon a time, during the brief, if heady, interval between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 when the United States ostensibly reigned supreme as the world’s “sole superpower,” Pentagon field manuals credited U.S. forces with the ability to achieve “quick, decisive victory — on and off the battlefield — anywhere in the world and under virtually any conditions.” Bold indeed (if not utterly delusional) would be the staff officer willing to pen such words today.

To be sure, the United States military routinely demonstrates astonishing technical prowess — putting a pair of Hellfire missiles through the roof of the taxi in which Mansour was riding, for example. Yet if winning — that is, ending wars on conditions favorable to our side — offers the measure of merit by which to judge a nation’s military forces, then when put to the test ours have been found wanting.

Not for lack of trying, of course. In their quest for a formula that might actually accomplish the mission, those charged with directing U.S. military efforts in the Greater Middle East have demonstrated notable flexibility. They have employed overwhelming force and “shock-and awe.” They have tried regime change (bumping off Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, for example) and “decapitation” (assassinating Mansour and a host of other militant leaders, including Osama Bin Laden). They have invaded and occupied countries, even giving military-style nation-building a whirl. They have experimented with counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention, retaliatory strikes and preventive war. They have operated overtly, covertly, and through proxies. They have equipped, trained, and advised — and when the beneficiaries of these exertions have folded in the face of the enemy, they have equipped, trained, and advised some more. They have converted American reservists into quasi-regulars, subject to repeated combat tours. In imitation of the corporate world, they have outsourced as well, handing over to profit-oriented “private security” firms functions traditionally performed by soldiers. In short, they have labored doggedly to translate American military power into desired political outcomes.

In this one respect at least, an endless parade of three- and four-star generals exercising command in various theaters over the past several decades have earned high marks. In terms of effort, they deserve an A.

As measured by outcomes, however, they fall well short of a passing grade. However commendable their willingness to cast about for some method that might actually work, they have ended up waging a war of attrition. Strip away the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel reassurances regularly heard at Pentagon press briefings or in testimony presented on Capitol Hill and America’s War for the Greater Middle East proceeds on this unspoken assumption: if we kill enough people for a long enough period of time, the other side will eventually give in.

On that score, the prevailing Washington gripe directed at Commander-in-Chief Obama is that he has not been willing to kill enough. Take, for example, a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed penned by that literary odd couple, retired General David Petraeus and Brookings Institution analyst Michael O’Hanlon, that appeared under the pugnacious headline “Take the Gloves Off Against the Taliban.” To turn around the longest war in American history, Petraeus and O’Hanlon argue, the United States just needs to drop more bombs.

The rules of engagement currently governing air operations in Afghanistan are, in their view, needlessly restrictive. Air power “represents an asymmetric Western advantage, relatively safe to apply, and very effective.” (The piece omits any mention of incidents such as the October 2015 destruction of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz by a U.S. Air Force gunship.) More ordnance will surely produce “some version of victory.” The path ahead is clear. “Simply waging the Afghanistan air-power campaign with the vigor we are employing in Iraq and Syria,” the authors write with easy assurance, should do the trick.

When armchair generals cite the ongoing U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria as a model of effectiveness, you know that things must be getting desperate.

Granted, Petraeus and O’Hanlon are on solid ground in noting that as the number of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan has decreased, so, too, has the number of air strikes targeting the Taliban. Back when more allied boots were on the ground, more allied planes were, of course, overhead. And yet the 100,000 close-air-support sorties flown between 2011 and 2015 — that’s more than one sortie per Taliban fighter — did not, alas, yield “some version of victory.” In short, we’ve already tried the Petraeus-O’Hanlon take-the-gloves-off approach to defeating the Taliban. It didn’t work. With the Afghanistan War’s 15th anniversary now just around the corner, to suggest that we can bomb our way to victory there is towering nonsense.

In Washington, Big Thinking and Small

Petraeus and O’Hanlon characterize Afghanistan as “the eastern bulwark in our broader Middle East fight.” Eastern sinkhole might be a more apt description. Note, by the way, that they have nothing useful to say about the “broader fight” to which they allude. Yet that broader fight — undertaken out of the conviction, still firmly in place today, that American military assertiveness can somehow repair the Greater Middle East — is far more deserving of attention than how to employ very expensive airplanes against insurgents armed with inexpensive Kalashnikovs.

To be fair, in silently passing over the broader fight, Petraeus and O’Hanlon are hardly alone. On this subject no one has much to say — not other stalwarts of the onward-to-victory school, nor officials presently charged with formulating U.S. national security policy, nor members of the Washington commentariat eager to pontificate about almost anything. Worst of all, the subject is one on which each of the prospective candidates for the presidency is mum.

From Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford on down to the lowliest blogger, opinions about how best to wage a particular campaign in that broader fight are readily available. Need a plan for rolling back the Islamic State? Glad you asked. Concerned about that new ISIS franchise in Libya? Got you covered. Boko Haram? Here’s what you need to know. Losing sleep over Al-Shabab? Take heart — big thinkers are on the case.

As to the broader fight itself, however, no one has a clue. Indeed, it seems fair to say that merely defining our aims in that broader fight, much less specifying the means to achieve them, heads the list of issues that people in Washington studiously avoid. Instead, they prattle endlessly about the Taliban and ISIS and Boko Haram and al-Shabab.

Here’s the one thing you need to know about the broader fight: there is no strategy. None. Zilch. We’re on a multi-trillion-dollar bridge to nowhere, with members of the national security establishment more or less content to see where it leads.

May I suggest that we find ourselves today in what might be called a Khe Sanh moment? Older readers will recall that back in late 1967 and early 1968 in the midst of the Vietnam War, one particular question gripped the national security establishment and those paid to attend to its doings: Can Khe Sanh hold?

Now almost totally forgotten, Khe Sanh was then a battlefield as well known to Americans as Fallujah was to become in our own day. Located in the northern part of South Vietnam, it was the site of a besieged and outnumbered Marine garrison, surrounded by two full enemy divisions. In the eyes of some observers, the outcome of the Vietnam War appeared to hinge on the ability of the Marines there to hold out — to avoid the fate that had befallen the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu slightly more than a decade earlier. For France, the fall of Dien Bien Phu had indeed spelled final defeat in Indochina.

Was history about to repeat itself at Khe Sanh? As it turned out, no… and yes.

The Marines did hold — a milestone! — and the United States lost the war anyway.

In retrospect, it seems pretty clear that those responsible for formulating U.S. policy back then fundamentally misconstrued the problem at hand. Rather than worrying about the fate of Khe Sanh, they ought to have been asking questions like these: Is the Vietnam War winnable? Does it even make sense? If not, why are we there? And above all, does no alternative exist to simply pressing on with a policy that shows no signs of success?

Today the United States finds itself in a comparable situation. What to do about the Taliban or ISIS is not a trivial question. Much the same can be said regarding the various other militant organizations with which U.S. forces are engaged in a variety of countries — many now failing states — across the Greater Middle East.

But the question of how to take out organization X or put country Y back together pales in comparison with the other questions that should by now have come to the fore but haven’t. Among the most salient are these: Does waging war across a large swath of the Islamic world make sense? When will this broader fight end? What will it cost? Short of reducing large parts of the Middle East to rubble, is that fight winnable in any meaningful sense? Above all, does the world’s most powerful nation have no other choice but to persist in pursuing a manifestly futile endeavor?

Try this thought experiment. Imagine the opposing candidates in a presidential campaign each refusing to accept war as the new normal. Imagine them actually taking stock of the broader fight that’s been ongoing for decades now. Imagine them offering alternatives to armed conflicts that just drag on and on. Now that would be a milestone.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s “Sinkhole Wars” for the Greater Middle East

Trump University and Selling Images

June 3rd, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The problem with the critics of Trump University is that they only provide a veneer for a collective tendency in US political life. Image counts and those with stellar university educations (consider the current President, of constitutional law fame) do not necessarily guarantee better performances in office.  Political craft is not always benefited by ivy league credentials.

In US history, the famously bookish John Quincy Adams succumbed to the knives of political reality for his over-tutored bearing. Before brawn and men of action, he stood little chance.  President Teddy Roosevelt also decided that brawn mixed with some vague concept of American manhood was needed for presidential valour.

As for the latest presidential contender in the mix of alpha wonders, we have Donald Trump, who has made certain segments of the commentariat flush with fear.  His latest pothole is supposedly that of the failed Trump University experiment.

John Cassidy, writing for The New Yorker, wonders whether

“one of the world’s leading democracies [will] elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant rip-off, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?”[1]

The attack on the university itself tends to also provide a false alibi for the sanctity of education systems more generally.  The impression given is that the Trump University project is a grotesque aberration in the field of tertiary education.

Again, as with so much regarding Trump, trawling through the filth reveals a broader social critique, one that will not be discussed.  Many universities have succumbed to managerial hog wash, used as additive for greater deceptions.  Grants are given without evidence of worth, a self-nourishing cycle of perpetuation; performance indicators suggest a bureaucratic assessment of what is, in many ways, incapable of assessment.  Students are monetised, papers are categorised according to economic value and rankings.

There is little doubt that Trump University seemed particularly rotten.  It was so rotten it has become the subject of a class-action suit by disgruntled users who, quite frankly, should have known better.  Take the words of a former salesman for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg.

According to his unsealed testimony, “Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.”[2]  How shocking.

That selling image and constructed “realities” pervasive in Trump land has migrated as a pursuit to university is hardly a surprise.  His university ended up advertising “graduate programs, post graduate programs, doctorate programs” but did nothing of the sort.  Many an institution has fallen foul of such behaviour.

Politicians themselves have received degrees from universities of dubious stature, irrespective of what political system we wish to peruse.  (Forget scholarship, which is regarded in the profit-driven institution as an evil to be abstained from.)  The politician, the actor, the salesman, the university charlatan – all share something in common.

The Clinton campaign’s response to Trump University does the rounds about its dubious quality and deep deception, ignoring the common practice employed by innumerable institutions in an effort to milk that grand mine commonly known as students. (The campaign statement refers to “exploitation” being “the name of the game at Trump University.”)

The modern university student, as management policy at university seems to direct, are more akin to units of spread sheet value, fought over by respective departments and bled over in the name of self-interest.  Out of this indecent scrap was born the notion of the student as both client and consumer. Be gone, notions of the teacher and pupil as sacred participants in an encounter of knowledge.  Welcome, the service provider!

People are – and here, the tragedy of education is all too real – regularly defrauded, taken for the ride of well sold promises in the education (gnashing teeth here) sector.  Instructors are tasked with the broader issue of “goals” and “missions” that sound all too often like business projections. Managers and committees constantly speak about culture change and “improvements”. Much of this urinary activity is passed off as decent, passable work, which can be happily calculated as part of that most lauded of nonsenses: the workload.

The Clinton campaign message continues: “Trump University employed startlingly unqualified instructors.”[3]  The statement insists that “One former employee remembers being disturbed by the fact that a member of her sales team who had previously sold jewellery was promoted to be a real-estate instructor.” A better example might have been astrophysics, but even the Clinton campaigners fail to see the difference.

Trump University served one essential purpose: churning out genetic copies of its founder by selling false idols. It sold deceptions and productive lies. It was a perfect symptom of the ultimate financial disease, engendering misguided attitudes that came unstuck in the Great Financial Crisis.

Rather than seeing it as an exceptional manifestation, one can only understand that failed tertiary enterprise as a broader academic and institutional one, typical of what modern university life has become.  Forget the real estate remit, which should have been treated with a good pinch of salt from the start.  As for Trump himself, a failed businessman (or educator) in the White House would hardly be a remarkable feat.  That office has seen all sorts.

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

Notes:

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

[2] http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

[3] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/everything-you-need-know-about-massive-scam-was-trump-university/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=20160601feed-trumpU

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump University and Selling Images

Algeria on the Edge of a “Soft Coup”

June 3rd, 2016 by Juanma Olarieta

First there were the color-named “revolutions” in the countries that emerged from the fall of the Soviet Union; then the Balkan War fractured Yugoslavia, a leader of the non-aligned countries,; then there was the so-called Arab Spring, and now might be the turn of Algeria, where presidential elections are to be held in 2019.

The destabilization of these countries was not randomly chosen: Algeria has always been a bastion for the Third Word and it’s currently defending the Damascus Government with unusual energy in the Arab World, because for the last 25 years it has been one of the first countries to suffer jihadist attacks.

Recently, it was known that General Nazzar had travelled to Paris to secretly meet with Hollande’s agents. Nazzar was one of the key promoters of the 1992 coup d’Etat, which later unleashed a brutal war against jihadism in Algeria.

Nevertheless, on September 13 last year, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika started a military purge that specially affected the Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS) —the Algerian intelligence services. General Toufik, who was in charge of the DRS since 1990, was deposed and, with him, left his assistants, such as General Hassan, director of counterespionage, who has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The chief of the purged agents is General Nezzar, who has come to Paris to show Hollande that he will be able to take the country’s reigns.

The coup in Algeria is evidently linked to a struggle that plays out in the highest political ranks, which is getting ready for the upcoming elections.

Once deposed, Algerian military and spies started talking and their confessions were published in the media that depends on the Broadcasting and Communications Center, which was until recently financed by General Toufik.

For example, the private news station Khabar has made public a two-hour-long interview with Colonel Mohamed Tahar Abdesselem, who was in charge of the Middle East Section of the DRS. Among the information he gave out in the interview, Colonel Abdesselem described the 1992 coup d’Etat.

That Coup took the form of an “interruption of elections”. In the first parliamentary electoral round, the islamists of the Islamic Salvation Front won and they were left with no choice: the militaries had to take over the country.

The Colonel describes that the election was staged. Actually, the coup had been prepared since 1990, when General Nezzar was appointed Minister of Defense and General Toufik was appointed director of the DRS.

Militaries were willing to accept almost every scenario, except for the electoral victory of the Islamists. The Colonel had warned this to the Islamist leader, Abassi Madani —they had both met while they were in jail. When he learned about the relationship between the Colonel and the Islamic leader, General Toufik deposed him, along with 10 other of his officials.

Evidently, in this narration, the major characters of the plan are missing: the imperialist forces, wchich never show their faces. In this case, we are referring to the French imperialists and the reason for the Coup and for the Colonel’s deposition, which was to safeguard the good relations between Algeria and France, as the Algerian TV said.

France can’t deal with the fact that things aren’t going as they planned on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea. Not in the 1992 elections, nor in the 2019 ones.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Algeria on the Edge of a “Soft Coup”

Sanders Takes LEAD Over Clinton In California

June 3rd, 2016 by Washington's Blog

The Los Angeles Times reports:

 A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll has found … [Sanders] has battled Clinton to a draw among all voters eligible for the Democratic primary, with 44% siding with him to 43% for Clinton.

***

Democratic primary election for president poll

Does this mean that it’s time for Sanders supporters to celebrate?

Not yet …

Clinton still has a 10-point lead among likely voters:

Democratic primary election for president poll

So unless the Sanders campaign steps up its get-out-the-vote effort, he’ll lose.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sanders Takes LEAD Over Clinton In California

“Hard Choices”: Hillary Clinton’s Memoir Deletions in Detail

June 3rd, 2016 by Ming Chun Tang

As was reported following the assassination of prominent Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres in March, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton erased all references to the 2009 coup in Honduras in the paperback edition of her memoirs, “Hard Choices.” Her three-page account of the coup in the original hardcover edition, where she admitted to having sanctioned it, was one of several lengthy sections cut from the paperback, published in April 2015 shortly after she had launched her presidential campaign.

A short, inconspicuous statement on the copyright page is the only indication that “a limited number of sections” — amounting to roughly 96 pages — had been cut “to accommodate a shorter length for this edition.” Many of the abridgements consist of narrative and description and are largely trivial, but there are a number of sections that were deleted from the original that also deserve attention.

Colombia

Clinton’s take on Plan Colombia, a U.S. program furnishing (predominantly military) aid to Colombia to combat both the FARC and ELN rebels as well as drug cartels, and introduced under her husband’s administration in 2000, adopts a much more favourable tone in the paperback compared to the original. She begins both versions by praising the initiative as a model for Mexico — a highly controversial claim given the sharp rise in extrajudicial killings and the proliferation of paramilitary death squads in Colombia since the program was launched.

The two versions then diverge considerably. In the original, she explains that the program was expanded by Colombian President Álvaro Uribe “with strong support from the Bush Administration” and acknowledges that “new concerns began to arise about human rights abuses, violence against labor organizers, targeted assassinations, and the atrocities of right-wing paramilitary groups.” Seeming to place the blame for these atrocities on the Uribe and Bush governments, she then claims to have “made the choice to continue America’s bipartisan support for Plan Colombia” regardless during her tenure as secretary of state, albeit with an increased emphasis on “governance, education and development.”

By contrast, the paperback makes no acknowledgment of these abuses or even of the fact that the program was widely expanded in the 2000s. Instead, it simply makes the case that the Obama administration decided to build on President Clinton’s efforts to help Colombia overcome its drug-related violence and the FARC insurgency — apparently leading to “an unprecedented measure of security and prosperity” by the time of her visit to Bogotá in 2010.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Also found in the original is a paragraph where Clinton discusses her efforts to encourage other countries in the Americas to join negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement during a regional conference in El Salvador in June 2009:

So we worked hard to improve and ratify trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and encouraged Canada and the group of countries that became known as the Pacific Alliance — Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile — all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the trans-Pacific trade agreement.

Clinton praises Latin America for its high rate of economic growth, which she revealingly claims has produced “more than 50 million new middle-class consumers eager to buy U.S. goods and services.” She also admits that the region’s inequality is “still among the worst in the world” with much of its population “locked in persistent poverty” — even while the TPP that she has advocated strongly for threatens to exacerbate the region’s underdevelopment, just as NAFTA caused the Mexican economy to stagnate.

Last October, however, she publicly reversed her stance on the TPP under pressure from fellow Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. Likewise, the entire two-page section on the conference in El Salvador where she expresses her support for the TPP is missing from the paperback.

Brazil

In her original account of her efforts to prevent Cuba from being admitted to the Organization of American States (OAS) in June 2009, Clinton singles out Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as a potential mediator who could help “broker a compromise” between the U.S. and the left-leaning governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Her assessment of Lula, removed from the paperback, is mixed:

As Brazil’s economy grew, so did Lula’s assertiveness in foreign policy. He envisioned Brazil becoming a major world power, and his actions led to both constructive cooperation and some frustrations. For example, in 2004 Lula sent troops to lead the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti, where they did an excellent job of providing order and security under difficult conditions. On the other hand, he insisted on working with Turkey to cut a side deal with Iran on its nuclear program that did not meet the international community’s requirements.

It is notable that the “difficult conditions” in Haiti that Clinton refers to was a period of perhaps the worst human rights crisis in the hemisphere at the time, following the U.S.-backed coup d’etat against democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. Researchers estimate that some 4,000 people were killed for political reasons, and some 35,000 women and girls sexually assaulted. As various human rights investigators, journalists and other eyewitnesses noted at the time, some of the most heinous of these atrocities were carried out by Haiti’s National Police, with U.N. troops often providing support — when they were not engaging them directly. WikiLeaked State Department cables, however, reveal that the State Department saw the U.N. mission as strategically important, in part because it helped to isolate Venezuela from other countries in the region, and because it allowed the U.S. to “manage” Haiti on the cheap.

In contrast to Lula, Clinton heaps praise on Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff, who was recently suspended from office pending impeachment proceedings:

Later I would enjoy working with Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s protégée, Chief of Staff, and eventual successor as President. On January 1, 2011, I attended her inauguration on a rainy but festive day in Brasilia. Tens of thousands of people lined the streets as the country’s first woman President drove by in a 1952 Rolls-Royce. She took the oath of office and accepted the traditional green and gold Presidential sash from her mentor, Lula, pledging to continue his work on eradicating poverty and inequality. She also acknowledged the history she was making. “Today, all Brazilian women should feel proud and happy.” Dilma is a formidable leader whom I admire and like.

The paperback version deletes almost all references to Rousseff, mentioning her only once as an alleged target of NSA spying according to Edward Snowden.

The Arab Spring

By far the lengthiest deletion in Clinton’s memoirs consists of a ten-page section discussing the Arab Spring in Jordan, Libya and the Persian Gulf region — amounting to almost half of the chapter. Having detailed her administration’s response to the mass demonstrations that had started in Tunisia before spreading to Egypt, then Jordan, then Bahrain and Libya,

Clinton openly recognizes the profound contradictions at the heart of the U.S.’ relationship with its Gulf allies:

The United States had developed deep economic and strategic ties to these wealthy, conservative monarchies, even as we made no secret of our concerns about human rights abuses, especially the treatment of women and minorities, and the export of extremist ideology. Every U.S. administration wrestled with the contradictions of our policy towards the Gulf.

And it was appalling that money from the Gulf continued funding extremist madrassas and propaganda all over the world. At the same time, these governments shared many of our top security concerns.

Thanks to these shared “security concerns,” particularly those surrounding al-Qaeda and Iran, her administration strengthened diplomatic ties and sold vast amounts of military equipment to these countries:

The United States sold large amounts of military equipment to the Gulf states, and stationed the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, the Combined Air and Space Operations Center in Qatar, and maintained troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, as well as key bases in other countries. When I became Secretary I developed personal relationships with Gulf leaders both individually and as a group through the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Clinton continues to reveal that the U.S.’ common interests with its Gulf allies extended well beyond mere security issues and in fact included the objective of regime change in Libya — which led the Obama administration into a self-inflicted dilemma as it weighed the ramifications of condemning the violent repression of protests in Bahrain with the need to build an international coalition, involving a number of Gulf states, to help remove Libyan leader Muammar Gaddhafi from power:

Our values and conscience demanded that the United States condemn the violence against civilians we were seeing in Bahrain, full stop. After all, that was the very principle at play in Libya. But if we persisted, the carefully constructed international coalition to stop Qaddafi could collapse at the eleventh hour, and we might fail to prevent a much larger abuse — a full-fledged massacre.

Instead of delving into the complexities of the U.S.’ alliances in the Middle East, the entire discussion is simply deleted, replaced by a pensive reflection on prospects for democracy in Egypt, making no reference to the Gulf region at all. Having been uncharacteristically candid in assessing the U.S.’ response to the Arab Spring, Clinton chose to ignore these obvious inconsistencies — electing instead to proclaim the Obama administration as a champion of democracy and human rights across the Arab world.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Hard Choices”: Hillary Clinton’s Memoir Deletions in Detail