Global Research

The US war in Afghanistan produced at least 11,000 civilian casualties last year, setting a new official record, according to a report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

The total number of civilians killed and wounded during combat actions by US and US-backed government forces, Taliban militias and other insurgent groups rose nearly five percent above 2014’s figure, according to the UN.

Afghan government forces were responsible for 17 percent of the casualties, while US and NATO forces were responsible for 2 percent, the UN found. The report identified at least 1,000 civilian casualties that could not be definitely attributed to any of the warring parties.

The UN report repeats the claims of the US military, blaming the Taliban for the bloodshed and implying that the relative drawdown of international forces carried out since 2014 has intensified the killing. In reality, responsibility for the deepening social catastrophe in Afghanistan lies squarely with American imperialism, which has fomented and waged a series of wars against the Afghan people over a period of decades.

Since the invasion in 2001, US forces have carried out a continuous reign of terror against the population, in which regular killing of civilians has been considered unavoidable “collateral damage.”

The latest UN report found that “targeted and deliberate killings” accounted for a substantial share of civilian deaths caused by American and US-backed Afghan units. Indeed, as last October’s bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz made clear, the murder of civilians has increasingly been employed as a deliberate tactic to intimidate adversaries of the US-installed Kabul government. US special forces scouted the hospital just days before it was bombed by an American gunship, working in concert with another commando team.

It was subsequently revealed that US military officers suspected the hospital of providing aid and shelter to Taliban forces, treating wounded insurgents and allowing them to use its facilities as a staging area.

The disaster inflicted on the country is being utilized to justify an expanded US military presence and permanent occupation of the country. Over the past six months, the White House has repeatedly signaled its agreement with Pentagon demands for a much larger US military role in Afghanistan, for years and decades to come.

Last October, the White House announced that it was delaying a planned “drawdown,” keeping at least 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through the end of Obama’s term. US military leaders now speak openly about their plans to indefinitely maintain a force of thousands of combat troops on the ground, along with extensive special forces deployments and a network of permanent bases.

The US determination to continue combat operations in Afghanistan is fueled by the growing breakdown of the US-backed puppet government in Kabul, the instability of which is threatening Washington’s ability to use the country as an organizing center for military operations throughout Central Asia, countering both Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

“Afghanistan is at serious risk of a political breakdown during 2016, occasioned by mounting political, economic and security challenges,” US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned earlier in February.

The fragility of the Afghan government, headed by President Ashraf Ghani, flows from the fact that it is little more than a loosely organized drug mafia, propped up by opium money and massive doses of US military violence. Until recently, the Kabul regime was headed by Hamid Karzai, a man with close family ties to the country’s leading drug trafficker. The State Department’s own Afghanistan special inspector characterized the political regime in Afghanistan as a burgeoning “narco-terrorist state” in recent testimony, noting that US anti-drug officials often refuse to visit Afghanistan out of fear for their lives.

Despite Washington’s constant rhetorical denunciations of the Taliban, the US is striving to stabilize its puppet regime by working out a compromise with sections of the Taliban via the Afghan Peace Process. US and Afghan leaders have issued increasingly open calls for members of the Islamic fundamentalist militia to join the ruling coalition in recent days.

“Any opposition group that seeks to live in brotherhood with us is welcome,” President Ghani said Monday.

“I think there are a lot of Taliban who want to come to the peace table,” US commander in Afghanistan John Campbell said on Saturday in statements from Kabul. Noting the absence of “one person who speaks for the Taliban,” Campbell called for efforts to “get the right people to the table.”

Of the countries that are off-track on the road to sound development, many are situated in the Arab World. The worst hit are either in conflict, near conflict or post conflict zones. Even when not undergoing the war disaster, the fragility of their development is further compounded by the prospects of war. In addition to the actual or potential woes of conflicts, their slow rate of progress is characteristic of small risky markets or capital scarce structures that have adopted unconditional liberalisation measures (real capital scarce and not financial capital).  For the most part, these countries still depend for their economic growth on the export earnings from a primary product: namely oil. When oil prices fall, economic growth stumbles, and an already poor development showing suffers yet another setback.

Yesterday’s accomplishments are frequently written off by a combination of war dislocation or anti-developmental macroeconomic policies. The latter are policies whose interface with reality does not sufficiently mobilise idle resources, as in putting the unemployed to decent work. For the group of risk laden and underachieving Arab countries, which comprises the overwhelming majority, the crunch on their course of development happens to be fourfold.

First, the determining moment in their development lies in the fact that the decision making circles often involve a cross-national class alliance for which another small country developing its productive capabilities in a world that is already consumed by a crisis of overproduction is unwanted. Furthermore, US-led imperialism, for which militarisation is not only a domain of accumulation, but the gyroscope that steadies its course of development, stands to benefit from the war and its social, political and financial impact.

Secondly, in addition to the calamity of war, the prospects of spreading conflict dampen investment and impose a drag on economic, social and institutional development. In many cases, war acts as a massive primitive accumulation measure expropriating labour and de-nationalising resources, after which the newly socialised working people (people thrown into the job market in search of wage jobs) and denationalised resources are only selectively re-engaged back into production. In the Arab World, once uprooted as a result of war or development-supressing macro policy (as in the simultaneous retreat of supply and demand), more of the dislocated people remain jobless or per the necessity for survival engage in informal poverty employment.

Thirdly, although economic growth, rapid industrialisation and technological advancement are indispensable conditions for development, they are pointless when governments restrain popular participation or, to use of the phraseology of the right development from the cold war era, constrain the capabilities of people to achieve different valuable human ‘functionings.’ The cold war competition for social development raised the ceiling and the resources needed to achieve socially desirable targets (UN convention on the right to development 1986).

Fourthly, the Arab World is a region that exhibits acute income inequality (UTIP 2011). Labour share from total income declined significantly between 1980 and 2010, and reached rates of around 25 percent (Guerriero 2012; ILO 2014). Without more evenly distributed income and wealth among different sections of society, the demand component that drives the momentum for auto-generated growth slows down.

Since the beginning of the neoliberal era (circa 1980), most of Arab economies have come to increasingly grow from ‘without’ by the incongruity of oil prices, geopolitical rents and war-like tensions. The fact that so far they have not harnessed their internal resources for the purpose of development implies that the goal of development was not a constituent part of the national security structure. It also implies that such departure of security from development concerns is a product of an internal social class disarticulation and, hence, a serious crisis not only of governance but also of the state. The consistent instantiation of a schismatic social contract, including its attendant non-autonomous legislative and judicial functions, blocks the intermediation of the interests of various strata in society.

Moreover, in spite of hollow growth exhibiting a low elasticity of growth to unemployment reduction over the past three decades, macroeconomic policies dictating resource allocation remained unchanged. The jobs I am speaking of are always in the decent work category of the ILO, unless otherwise indicated. In a sense, one can safely say that the historical agency in charge of development reproduced pretty much the same policies cum meagre development outcomes time and again.

Another characteristic of Arab economies is the slow dynamic rise in labour productivity or, the often observed, negative productivity growth rate. Labour productivity growth is the nucleus of wealth creation and, when missing, it demonstrates the slow progress of indigenously based growth – growth from within derived by national capabilities – or growth that is based on the infusion of national R&D and knowhow in production. One is aware of the rising technical composition of capital from technology imports displacing labour; however, in the Arab world, there are no significant positive linkages between the spill over of externally imported modern technology and local capacity. At any rate, in the composition of growth, the elements of nationally based production, consumption and the policy designated automatic stabilisers cannot steady the business cycle in the face of minimal external shocks. Oil price drops and the business cycle follows suit. Only a decade or so ago, budgets were formulated on the basis of around 20 US$ a barrel. In 2015, the budgets required roughly 80 US$ per barrel to be balanced. Dependency on oil grew at very high rates and most Arab economies became more vulnerable still.

The positive developmental impact resulting from a transient rise in oil prices is either a stabilisation measure, which does not filter into the sphere of production (it mostly boosts consumption), or is sapped by poorly conceived macro policy, which does not redress the most pressing economic concern: the often negative productivity growth rate. Moreover, without the synergy of productivity-based growth with rising incremental value-added income (including wages) driving the demand for the infusion of knowledge in production, the cultural spinoffs that would egg on progressive institutional change would be missing (UNHCHR 2004). Tangentially, the goal of ‘nationalising’ jobs (replacing foreign by national labour) or synchronising labour to capital’s requirement is pointless when the virtuous circle of productivity growth cum economic growth has not taken root or when growth largely depends on oil revenues. There are no significant decent jobs in the technical skills category being created by the national economy; these qualitative jobs pertain to the industrial culture of the more advanced countries. The conditions for the brain drain are therefore objective. By the standard definition of development, which is economic growth, with expanding output and employment, institutional transformation and technological progress, Arab countries have been experiencing lumpen development.

In times of high oil prices, output per worker growth (a proxy of labour productivity) appears positive and somewhat astronomically high, but when oil revenues are deducted from total income, output per worker growth is more often negative than positive. The productive capital stock per worker, or equipment of the modern technology type that grows from the nationally-induced need to capitalise both capital and labour in order to meet demand, is not rising (Kadri 2014).

It is true, but more so a truism, to assert that reviving these debilitated economies requires an end to conflicts and the creation of a politically stable environment, conducive to both domestic and foreign investment – investment of the higher output to capital ratio type – along with rising internal demand. Yet, as true as this assertion may seem, the regional security/insecurity arrangement is now anchored in a bellum americanum or continuous war condition emerging from more acute international divisions over regional control. The spinoffs of war on the political and economic side are regressive. On the national political scene, a process of ‘selective democracy’ similar to the one practiced in ancient times – as opposed to universal or popular democracy – which enshrines the right of the few at the expense of the many has grown further. On the macroeconomic side, policies may have taken a turn into a sort of extreme neoliberalism, as in lifting subsidies on essential commodities in countries that already experience a high rate of malnutrition in children (Everington 2014).

Although it is practical to develop a macroeconomic strategy that envisages development in view of risk, the current policy interface between external shocks/conflicts and the national economy is based almost entirely on the non-existent assumptions of an even-playing field, a risk-free environment and a market that works best with little government intervention. Not that demanding a limited role for the government in the economy would be necessarily functional anywhere, but to propose a small government under war or war-like conditions, as did the International Financial Institutions, is beyond the pale.  When the elephant in the room, the wars or their resonances and the lopsided institutional context, is overlooked, then it is no longer myopia on the part of the cross-national agency in charge of development, which is causing the past errors to be repeated, it is rather its marked lack of will to carry out development.

In circumspect operational terms, reaching the development goal in such an uncertain context has to address the issue of managing the welfare intermediated side of the macro-economy subject to a plethora of economic and extra economic constraints of which, principally, the political risk/insecurity level reproduced conjointly by regional and extra-regional agents overshadows the course of events. Nowhere is it easy separate the politics from the economics, but in small developing countries exposed to war-like risk or historical uncertainty, the operational problematic prioritises ‘politics’ or the decision making level as the principal control variable. The past and current performances, a caption of which is reviewed below, overlook the interrelatedness and the structure of determination between politics, much of which revolves around a primacy of political and strategic extra-regional control (imperialist) considerations, and the national ‘economic’ framework.

The past recipes of economic reform intended to crowd in political reform as a result of oiling the market machinery for a frictionless welfare maximising outcome occurred only on the pages of first-year economics textbooks. Moving from the public to the private sector and from closed to open economies did not shift resources into more competitive areas. According to the World Bank, the Arab share of manufacturing in investment is declining almost everywhere, and the share of manufacturing in GDP is lower than that in all other developing regions except Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank 2011; World Development Indicators various years). The share of high-technology exports from total manufactured exports in the AW is at around 1 to 2 percentage points, below the rank of Sub-Saharan Africa – including South Africa, which is around 5 per cent (World Development Indicators various years; World Bank 2011).

Because of capping indigenous industrial supply capacity, or the type of production that issues from a multi-layered and nationally-based supply chain, Arab countries had to remain namely dependent on raw material exports (UNIDO 2014). For fast neoliberal reformers and slow reformers alike, the present condition of low oil price, steep deficits cum low output growth is telling of how past and present parochial policies failed to identify the principal conduit of regional development, which is overdetermination by their mode of integration with the global economy through the intertwined channels of oil and war. Not that there are exceptions to the rule of development failures, but in case there is an odd or sporadic achiever, the explanation of developmental success could be carried out more fittingly on geopolitical grounds or as a result of geopolitical rents rather than ‘indigenous economic performance’ grounds. The shifting regional cordon sanitaire is a primary explanatory variable of development, or mostly, underdevelopment.

The putative case may be that some Arab countries may have needed to liberalise trade, but not willy-nilly as they have done. Trade liberalisation could have been selective and conditional and within their own respective regions first, such that their negotiating position and accession into the global economy does not come at the expense of national industry and food security, for instance. But, it was not. Arab countries import more than half their food consumption and some food dependent and cash-strapped countries have to borrow to buy their basic foods (Bush 2015). More so than in the run of the mill circumstance, in a war-tense atmosphere, even the United Nations thinks it may be wise to be choosy about what to liberalise and only in relation to developing the national industry and to respond to the strategies of the big trading partners and the demands of their markets (UN 2008). However, deindustrialisation or the shift from industry to commerce based growth in the neoliberal era, also shifted the social structure, its class formation and the entrepreneurial mind-set. Just as in the days of colonialism, the leading strata is re-confined to the practice of commercial undertakings; but of course, this time around without military colonial presence. In a sense, the new merchant class in charge, a subordinate partner of international financial capital, acted as the surrogate colonialist. For such a class, short term profits from commerce and finance outstripped the prevailing slow growing profit rates of national industry.

In the neoliberal era, the bonds of the merchant class to international financial circles grew over time, and its reproductive base has come to depend more on the safety of the international financial markets than the capacity of the national economy to produce. As a result of shifting the ties of the national governing structure from the national to the international base, disciplining profit rates for the sake of industrialisation, as did East Asia for instance, was not tabled in development considerations and practice.

Argumentatively, it may have been valid that there need be a boost to the environment for the growth and development of the private sector, but such position need not view the public/private investment relationship as antagonistic, as does conventional wisdom. In practical terms, for public investment to crowd out private investment is nearly impossible (Weeks 2014). When the risks to private returns are high, and potential resources are plenty, a better managed public sector acts as a quasi-insurer of private interests. The downgrading of the public sector in terms of size and quality performance could only be attributed to unfettered short-term profiteering around the deconstruction of state functions and is partly responsible for the overall slack in economic performance. The social consequences of such measures could at times buttress the real conditions for war-making or compare with the baleful effects of war.

That development required diversification away from primary products was the refrain that one often heard in every Arab summit since of the early 1980’s. However, as regionalism and/or transforming countries into regional building-blocs to expand markets requires at least the promotion of investment in intraregional infrastructure, given the low rate of regional integration (intra-regional trade and investment are quite low in global standards, UN 2011), moving away from oil appears to have never been a seriously pursued goal. Other palpable indicators of diversification would include rearing national industrialisation by protection and market expansion, and complementarities that synchronise physical and human capital in the composition of economic growth; both of which, however, exhibited declining rates (industrialisation, as in the manufacturing side, declined [UNIDO 2014] and structural unemployment rose [ILO 2014]). Once a merchant or extractive mode as opposed to an industrial mode takes hold of an economy, the extraction of surplus would not depend on value added and market expansion – exchange-based trade alone creates little added value – and entrepreneurs become sort of economic introverts whose spoils arise from raising their income shares within their own fief.

When addressing the macro economy in this class of risk-exposed countries, questions have to be put differently. There is already the inherent weakness of being born a colonially-bread late-developer. Naturally, colonialism blocks developing countries’ modernisation relative to its own ability to control because, at least on logical grounds, if all modernise, things do not add up as result of the adding up fallacy. With the exception of the sparsely populated Gulf states, Arab countries represent roughly less than half a percentage point of world purchasing power (WDI various years). Having a vantage starting point and being secure, the opposite of what Arab countries are, matters in the race for development. In addition, the neoliberally inspired resource allocation mechanisms were more like the tribute delivered to empire as a condition of surrender.  In retrospect, the merchant class was smug with Arab defeats and used defeatism to drive the unconditional neoliberally imposed policy agenda.

Consider why that when revenues from the export of primary commodities rise, the rate of retained savings dwindles afterwards, as in the aid syndrome. The policy set up is such that as consumption, namely of the conspicuous type, rises steadily drawing on national savings and reserves, less and less savings would be left for investment in productive activity when oil revenues fall. One can dwell on the point, but what is important to realise is that an economic contraction/expansion could be triggered by an external shock, however, its magnitude and duration is determined by the adequacy of economic stabilisers, the sturdiness of the industrial constituents of growth and the efficiency of institutions. The prolonged economic contraction in these countries, (a 1 percent real GDP per capita growth on average between 1980 and 2010 [WDI various years]), therefore raises more questions regarding the decision making process behind the macroeconomic constellation, including why governing structures had foreknowledge that they had to diversify and support national industry, and yet failed persistently to implement such a project. Of course, the leading social forces, US-led financial capital through its imperialist thrust point and the financially integrated local merchant class, whose organic ties grow by the homogenising effect of financialisation, have become undifferentiated in the role they have played in such regressive process. While financially groomed profit rates reduce the share of wages everywhere by varying degrees of austerity, for lack of internationalist ideology and organisation, labour has become ever more divided.

Let us for the sake of argument follow another of the mainstream’s positions as applied to the Arab World, as in freeing the environment to invest, which presumably could have been a boon. In reality, the rates and quality of investment fell consistently over the neoliberal period (WDI various years). Without an investment guiding institution and an insurance framework underwriting war-like contingencies or force majeure attributed losses, small, risky and fragmented markets, presided over by a mercantilist-like class, channelled investment into short gestating capital, speculative or non-productive activity, which in turn, required low productivity service sector jobs. To boot, reducing the public sector’s job creation rate and investment did not better employment conditions. Alongside public sector cuts, deindustrialisation reduced the rate of decent job creation far below the rate of new entrants into the labour force (UNIDO 2014). One has to keep in mind, that population growth rates tapered down steadily as of 1960, and unemployment cannot be attributed to rising population levels, especially when the mix of macro policy adopted, since circa 1980, lowers the rate of growth, changes its input composition and lowers its reliance on upskilling national labour. Hence, rising unemployment and poverty were necessary outcomes of unconditional liberalisation.

Welfare in this instance could not have been conceived with a view in which private interests carry forth the betterment of public interests. The extractive and merchant bases of the institutional context and its rules are such that, at the intersection where private and public interests meet, there is more antagonism than complementarity. Moreover, because of the stronger material ties of the governing merchant class to the international financial market, as finance dictates lower labour shares through austerity, private interests exhibit a necrotrophic relationship with the public sector (they feed of it until it perishes). In a situation, which is overdetermined by a constellation of extra-national (militarised imperialism), and a subordinately national merchant classes, the end goal of the decision making arrangement is not necessarily the wellbeing of the region. Ironically Milton Freidman’s ‘bang for buck’ appears hold, but in reverse of course. Being in Milton’s long term now, there are currently higher returns from past social investment, market rigidities and government intervention that trail from way back in the seventies and continue to impart welfare and a modicum of institutional integrity; past spending on social investment more than paid off the initial costs. All on its own, a social efficiency criterion under selective openness in which social investment and decent job creation was state planned appears to have outperformed an economic efficiency criterion based on fantastic marginal magnitudes making prices ‘right’ for growth. In short, the rigidities of the past contributed to enhancing health, education, productivity and the sort of self-reliance that boosted national security.

Macro issues are interrelated and questions about their efficacies beg their own answers. For instance, to what extent is the problem of unemployment in some of these countries an outcome of monetary policy that targets low rates of inflation with no regard to unemployment? To what extent is the problem of stagflation in some countries an outcome of a policy-mix of increasing short term interest rates along with national currency devaluations? To what extent has the adverse impact of a chronically high rate of unemployment aggravated the contraction triggered by an external shock (falling oil price) and thus created a debilitating path dependence?

To parody this situation without the trappings of postmodern hallucinations, the mechanisms behind these questions are like various irrigation valves channelling resources between several nationally based working strata and internationally based financial interests. To demystify, they are about who (which class) has enough power to get a higher share of income and how much. As labour share from total income fell to the lowest global ranks as a result of and absence of politically organised labour, inflation and wage compression, the steadying of the national currency against the dollar (pegged rate) channelled wealth not only up within the same society, but also abroad. Countries with balance of payment constraints are short leashed by institutional lenders who can wreak havoc on nation states by simply delaying disbursements that support the national currency (if national currency devalues, inflation rises, etc.). In a sense, this policy, as do many other neoliberal measures, makes corruption legal. That is to say, if corruption is defined as the diversion of public wealth to private use: the past and still ongoing exchange rate and monetary policy under open capital account regimes, which was not only legal but also supported by major international financial institutions, is corruption at large.

But to go back to our questions, the answer to all three problems may be drawn from any standard second-year macroeconomic textbook: a country cannot peg to the dollar under an open capital account, and still hold on to an effective monetary policy. However, it is not the effectiveness of monetary policy that comes first; it is the ownership of policy or policy autonomy emanating from the margin of state sovereignty. The sovereignty qua security of Arab states has become less substantiated by developmental capabilities, knowledge assets, human wellbeing and freedoms. More so, in times of war or war-like conditions, in the Arab World, the ultimate sovereign may be allegorically deduced from the inscription on the side of Louis XIV’s canon: ultima ratio regum (the final argument of kings). The military balance of forces, in which imperialist intervention holds sway, has become the broker of sovereignty and, along with the ideological avalanche of neoliberalism, these explain much of the lost policy autonomy since 1980.

Regaining development means regaining policy autonomy under conditions of popular sovereignty. The positive relationship between policy space and positive developmental outcome is such a straightforward question that, in spite of its sensitivity, was addressed by the UN: ‘the idea of policy space refers to the freedom and ability of governments to identify and pursue the most appropriate mix of economic and social policies to achieve equitable and sustainable development’ (UN 2014). Yet, in the typical half-truth type positioning resulting from the UN’s subordination to the dominant imperialist power, it attributes loss of autonomy, in one instance, to ‘various legal obligations emerging from multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements’ (UN 2014). It appears as the UN Security Council deals with the possibility of regional wars escalating into global ones, state sovereignty has become a by-product of a universally democratic international law, in which honouring agreements is part of the gentlemanly behaviour of Western nations. In significant swathes of the third world, violent forms of class power exercise determine much of autonomy. Class power is not the ahistorical person or group in executive office with megalomaniac individual agency; it is the full weight if history, its dominant ideology, and monolithic institutions into which Arabs and Africans are born.

The higher rate of value and resource dislocation resulting from the violence of war has been contravening the covenants of international law and the charter of the UN since 1945. In hierarchically articulated class structures, smelting together with finance and socially cutting across national boundaries, the consumption of humans and nature, often by brutal means, is necessarily but not exclusively a historical precursor to global economic growth. The Arabs and the Africans are not ‘wretched’ by historical coincidence. They are so as a result of all round and systemic imperialist assault.  The order of causal determination, whose recognition is the litmus test of independent scholarship, begins with the leading class’s ideological bent to promote the under-valorisation of the weakest spots in the developing world by aggression.

Ali Kadri is Senior Research Fellow at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. He was previously Visiting Fellow at the Department of International Development, London School of Economics (LSE) and Head of the Economic Analysis Section at the United Nations regional office for Western Asia in Beirut. 

His current research is on the political economy of development in the Arab World. During his work at the United Nations, he was the lead author of the UN flagship publication dealing with the economic and social conditions of Arab Western Asia, and he has published widely on aspects of the labour process in the Arab world. His recent book, Arab Development Denied (2014), discusses the formidable obstacles facing development in the Arab world.

He can be reached at [email protected]

References

UN, General Assembly, 4 December 1986 A/RES/41/128, 97th plenary meeting,

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm

UTIP (University of Texas Inequality Project) (2011) Estimated Household Income Inequality Data Set. http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/data.html

Guerriero, M. (2012) ‘The Labour Share of Income around the World: Evidence from a Panel Dataset’, IDPM Development Economics and Public Policy Working Paper Series, no.32

UNHCHR, Economic and Social Council, Working Group on the Right to Development, Geneva, 11-20 February 2004.

Kadri A., ‘The New Middle East: Protest and Revolution in the Arab World,’ Fawaz Gerges (ed.) A pre Arab Spring Depressive Business Cycle, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Everington J. and El Gazzar S., Consumers hit hard as Egypt subsidy cuts send fuel prices soaring 78%, July 5, 2014, http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/economics/consumers-hit-hard-as-egypt-subsidy-cuts-send-fuel-prices-soaring-78

World Bank (2011) Middle East and North Africa Region, Assessment of the Local Manufacturing Potential for Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Projects (Washington DC: World Bank).

Bush R., Uprisings without Agrarian Questions in Development Challenges and Solutions after the Arab Spring, ed. Kadri A., Springer 2015

UN (2008) Survey of Economic and Social Developments in Western Asia, 2007–2008 (New York: United Nations).

Weeks J., The Irreconcilable Inconsistencies of Neoclassical Macroeconomics: A False Paradigm (Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy), Routledge 2014

UN (2011) Survey of Economic and Social Developments in Western Asia, 2007–2008 (New York: United Nations).

ILO (International Labour Organisation) (2014) Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 8^th ed. http://www.ilo.org/empelm/what/WCMS_114240/lang–en/index.htm

UNIDO (2014). Industrial Statistics Database, INDSTAT4 – 2014 edition. (Geneva: UNIDO)

UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report, 2014, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2014overview_en.pdf

African Americans are still brutally murdered with impunity

One of the most outrageous and well publicized lynching in the history of the United States took place nearly seven decades ago on July 25, 1946 when two African American couples were brutally killed by a white mob in Monroe, Georgia.

George W. and Mae Murray Dorsey along with Roger and Dorothy Malcolm, all of whom were in their 20s, were employed as sharecroppers on the land of a white man named J. Loy Harrison. On July 11, Roger Malcolm was said to have stabbed in self-defense a white man employed on the Harrison farm by the name of Barnette Hester.

Malcolm spent nearly two weeks in jail but was released after Harrison paid his bail. Harrison drove Dorothy Malcolm and the Dorseys to pick up Malcolm when they were allegedly hijacked by a lynch mob which killed both couples.

This cold blooded and calculated massacre was carried out in the aftermath of World War II during a wave of such killings throughout the South. George W. Dorsey had served in the military during the war in the Pacific and had only been out of the army for nine months when he was victimized by the lynch mob.

Some 2.5 million African American men registered for the draft between 1941-45, along with over 6,000 Black women who volunteered in segregated units of the army corps and the navy. After experiencing racism within the military while deployed in the U.S., Europe, Africa and the Pacific, many veterans were not willing to accept legalized segregation and racial exploitation.

A more militant political mood was evident in the South and other regions of the U.S. beginning during the war and extending into the late 1940s and early 1950s. This discontent with the status-quo prompted violent retributions by white racists who dominated law-enforcement, agricultural production, business and public service.

Another highly publicized racist attack occurred on February 12 against a recently returned African American war veteran. According to an entry on the website Today in Civil Liberties History, “Hours after being discharged from the Army following World War II, Sgt. Isaac Woodard was taken from a bus in Batesburg-Leesville, South Carolina, beaten and blinded by police and then jailed. Reports of the brutal incident aroused national outrage.”

The Dorseys and Malcolms worked on a plantation where they were subjected to slave-like conditions in the immediate aftermath of an imperialist war which ostensibly was designed to end racial oppression and legal impunity. Although Dorsey served in the military during the war he could only find work as a field hand after returning to the South.

In a book published as a petition to the United Nations in 1951 authored largely by Atty. William L. Patterson, he notes in regard to the social atmosphere after the WWII and the beginning of the Korean War, that “Now there is not a great American city from New York to Cleveland or Detroit, from Washington, the nation’s capital, to Chicago, from Memphis to Atlanta or Birmingham, from New Orleans to Los Angeles, that is not disgraced by the wanton killing of innocent Negroes. It is no longer a sectional phenomenon. “(We Charge Genocide, p. 8, 1951)

Patterson also says “Once the classic method of lynching was the rope. Now it is the policeman’s bullet. To many an American the police are the government, certainly its most visible representative. We submit that the evidence suggests that the killing of Negroes has become police policy in the United States and that police policy is the most practical expression of government policy.”

Lynching Sparked National Outrage

The exploitative and repressive conditions in the Post World War II period has been captured as well by the African American press during the period which was filled with accounts of police beatings, killings, mob violence and the rise of the Dixiecrat party, a splinter from the Democratic Party bitterly opposed to even minimal reforms related to granting civil rights to the former enslaved oppressed nation.

In the specific situation of the Malcolms and Dorseys, they rode with Harrison from the local jail in Walton County where Monroe is located ostensibly returning to the farm where they worked. Harrison claims that he was stopped by a group of 15-20 men who ordered the African American men out of the vehicle initially and later took the women into mob custody.

They were tied to trees, beaten severely and shot to death while Harrison stood in silence he claimed. Mae Murray Dorsey was seven months pregnant at the time of the lynching.

Despite a nationwide outcry demanding justice, no one was ever indicted for murder or civil rights violations against the couples. A large number of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents were sent into Monroe to investigate the lynching by taking statements from potential witnesses and collecting material evidence.

U.S. District Judge T. Hoyt Davis impaneled and directed a 23-man grand jury, which included two African Americans. The grand jury began to hear testimony in the case on December 2, 1946.

The then Georgia Governor Ellis Arnall stated “that 15 to 20 of the mob members are known by name.” The evidence collected from the investigation was delivered to the grand jury by U.S. District Attorney John P. Cowart and John Kelly who were employed by the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

Judge Davis “pointed out that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the offense of murder except under well-defined conditions.” After all was said and done some five months later, the federal court, the White House and the FBI said there was insufficient evidence to file charges against the 20-30 white men involved in the massacre. One man who testified before the grand jury was charged with perjury for providing false information about where he was at the time of the lynching.

Later in the 1990s, interests in the 1946 mass lynching resurfaced demanding a reopening of an investigation into the massacre. Nonetheless, these efforts did not result in any criminal charges being filed against those who may have participated and were still alive.

Every year a re-enactment of the lynching is staged to keep this horrendous crime in the minds of subsequent generations of African Americans and others.

Lynchings Continue in 2016

This pattern continues through today where African Americans are gunned down routinely by the police and vigilantes and in the overwhelming number of cases no one is held accountable.

The local law-enforcement agencies, the courts and the federal government have in most cases proved incapable of prosecuting those who engage in racist violence against the oppressed. The Justice Department has admitted that it does not accurately document police killings and their racial implications.

Corporate media outlets documented in 2015 the police killing of at least 975 people. A significant and disproportional number of these victims were African Americans.

Mass demonstrations and urban rebellions against the unjustified use of lethal force by the police have accelerated since the killings of Travon Martin in Florida during 2012 and Michael Brown in Missouri on August 9, 2014.

Nonetheless, organized and racialized state violence against the nationally oppressed will not be ended until there is a structural transformation of the system of capitalism. Violence and repression against the oppressed and working people in general is designed to maintain the capitalist and imperialist system.

On Feb.16, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in coordination with Hezbollah and the National Defense Forces (NDF) liberated the village of Misqan in northern Aleppo following a heavy firefight with the militants operating in the area, mostly members of Al-Nusra and Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham terrorist groups.

The Kurdish YPG units and their allies seized the rebel stronghold of Tal Rifa. Earlier, the YPG cut the road between the towns of Tall-Rifaa and Azaz. The Kurdish has established a fire control of the road with sniper and mortar fire.

The YPG also launched a military opertion in the Aleppo’s district of Al-Hillak. According to reports, the operation was conducted from the YPG positions at Sheikh Maqsoud. Now, the clashes are ongoing inside Al-Hillak. This draws attention of the terrorists already involved in heavy clashes against the government’s forces in the district of Bustan Al-Pasha.

Meanwhile, the SAA secured the Thermal Power Plant located in eastern Aleppo. Now, the SAA units are securing the area and cleaning it from IEDs planted by terrorists. The Thermal Power Plant has a key value because it is able to provide a significant electricity supplies to the city.

The Turkish army continued to hit Kurdish militia targets in Syria for the third day in a row Feb.15. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmed Davutoglu said Ankara will not allow the town of Azaz in northern Syria to fall to the Kurdish YPG forces and promised the “harshest reaction,” if the group attempts to re-take the city. Thus, al Nusra, ISIS and other terrorist groups have got a significant artillery support in Northern Syria which will likely stop advances against terrorists in a few of directions.

Support South Front! PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Despite Barack Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, and the plunge in oil prices that King Saud agreed to with Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry on 11 September 2014, the economic damages that the U.S. and Sauds have aimed against a particular oil-and-gas giant, Russia, have hit mostly elsewhere — at least till now.

This has been happening while simultaneously Obama’s violent February 2014 coup overthrowing Ukraine’s democratically elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych (and the head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor calls it “the most blatant coup in history”) has caused Ukraine’s economy to plunge even further than Russia’s, and corruption in Ukraine to soar even higher than it was before America’s overthrow of that country’s final freely elected government, so that Ukraine’s economy has actually been harmed far more than Russia’s was by Obama’s coup in Ukraine and Obama’s subsequent economic sanctions against Russia (sanctions that are based on clear and demonstrable Obama lies but that continue as if they weren’t).

Bloomberg News headlined on February 4th, “These Are the World’s Most Miserable Economies,” and reported the “misery index” rankings of 63 national economies — a standard ranking-system that calculates “misery” as being the sum of the unemployment-rate and the inflation-rate. They also compared the 2016 rankings (which were based on 2015 figures) to the 2015 rankings (which were based on 2014 figures).

Top rank, #1 both years — the most miserable economy in the world during 2015 — was Venezuela, because of that country’s 95% dependence upon oil-export earnings (which crashed when oil-prices plunged). The U.S.-Saudi agreement destroyed Venezuela’s economy.

Bloomberg hadn’t reported misery-index rankings for 2014 showing economic performances during 2013, but economist Steve H. Hanke of Johns Hopkins University did, in his “Measuring Misery Around the World, May 2014,” which ranked 90 countries; and, during 2013 (Yanukovych’s final year as President before his being forced out by Obama), Ukraine’s rank was #23 and its misery-index was 24.4.

Russia’s was #36 and its misery index was 19.9.  So: those can be considered to be the baseline-figures, from which any subsequent economic progress or decline may reasonably be calculated. (On 3 February 2015, a year after Yanukovych had been overthrown by the UAE royals’ friend Obama, their Khaleej Times issued a “List of Most Miserable Countries,” and calculated that in 2013 the misery-index for Ukraine was 51.8. That figure was more than a bit rich, and their methodology wasn’t explained, but maybe it was just that they wanted to give those royals’ American aristocratic friends a favorable baseline for their propaganda pumping their Ukraine-coup operation.)

The figures given in the recent Bloomberg report are, for Ukraine, during 2014 (the year of the February 2014 coup), #2 with a misery-index of 57.8; and during 2015 (the latest available figure), #5 with a misery-index of 26.3.

Bloomberg (also) doesn’t explain their ranking’s methodology, but fudging the numbers would be too crude a way for Western ‘news’ media to deceive their audiences and so is rarely practiced in those more ‘polite’ countries.

The figures in Bloomberg for Russia are: during 2014, #7 with a misery-index of 21.1; and during 2015, #14 with a misery-index of 14.5.

Thus: whereas Russia became economically less miserable throughout the entire period 2013-2015, starting with a misery-index of 19.9 and ending with one of 14.5, Ukraine went from a misery-index of 24.4 to one of 26.3. During that three-year period Ukraine’s figure peaked in the year of Obama’s coup at 57.8. So, at least Ukraine’s misery seems to be heading back downward in the coup’s aftermath. But meanwhile, Russia went from 19.9 to 21.1 to 14.5 — and had no year that was as bad as Ukraine’s best year was during that period of time. And yet: that coup and the economic sanctions and the U.S.-Saudi oil-agreement were targeted against Russia — not against Ukraine.

The U.S. performance during that same period was: from 11.0, to 4.6, to (the latest, 2015) 6.4.

Saudi Arabia started with 18.9 during 2013, and was ignored (not ranked at all) in the Bloomberg article.

During the interim, and even in the years leading up to 2014, Russia had been (and still is) refocusing its economy away from Russia’s natural resources and toward a broad sector of high technology: military R&D and production.

On 15 December 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute headlined, “Sales by Largest Arms Companies Fell Again in 2013, but Russian Firms’ Sales Continued Rising,” and reported, “Sales by companies headquartered in the United States and Canada have continued to moderately decrease, while sales by Russian-based companies increased by 20 per cent in 2013.”

The following year, SIPRI bannered, on 14 December 2015, “Global Arms Industry: West Still Dominant Despite Decline,” and reported that:

“Despite difficult national economic conditions, the Russian arms industry’s sales continued to rise in 2014. … ‘Russian companies are riding the wave of increasing national military spending and exports. There are now 11 Russian companies in the Top 100 and their combined revenue growth over 2013–14 was 48.4 per cent,’ says SIPRI Senior Researcher Siemon Wezeman. In contrast, arms sales of Ukrainian companies have substantially declined. … US companies’ arms sales decreased by 4.1 per cent between 2013 and 2014, which is similar to the rate of decline seen in 2012–13. … Western European companies’ arms sales decreased by 7.4 per cent in 2014.”

This is a redirection of the Russian economy that Vladimir Putin was preparing even prior to Obama’s war against Russia. Perhaps it was because of the entire thrust of the U.S. aristocracy’s post-Soviet determination to conquer Russia whenever the time would be right for NATO to strike and grab it. Obama’s public ambivalence about Russia never persuaded Putin that the U.S. would finally put the Cold War behind it and end its NATO alliance as Russia had ended its Warsaw Pact back in 1991. Instead, Obama continued to endorse expanding NATO, right up to Russia’s borders (now even into Ukraine) — an extremely hostile act.

By building the world’s most cost-effective designers and producers of weaponry, Russia wouldn’t only be responding to America’s ongoing hostility — or at least responding to the determination of America’s aristocracy to take over Russia, the world’s largest trove of natural resources — but would also expand Russia’s export-earnings and international influence by selling to other countries weaponry that’s less-burdened with the costs of sheer corruption than are the armaments that are being produced in what is perhaps the world’s most corrupt military-industrial complex: America’s. Whereas Putin has tolerated corruption in other areas of Russia’s economic production (figuring that those areas are less crucial for Russia’s future), he has rigorously excluded it in the R&D and production and sales of weaponry. Ever since he first came into office in 2000, he has transformed post-Soviet Russia from being an unlimitedly corrupt satellite of the United States under Boris Yeltsin, to becoming truly an independent nation; and this infuriates America’s aristocrats (who gushed over Yeltsin).

The Russian government-monopoly marketing company for Russia’s weapons-manufacturers, Rosoboronexport, presents itself to nations around the world by saying:

“Today, armaments and military equipment bearing the Made in Russia label protect independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of dozens of countries. Owing to their efficiency and reliability, Russian defense products enjoy strong demand on the global market and maintain our nation’s leading positions among the world’s arms exporters. For the past several years, Russia has consistently ranked second behind the United States as regards arms exports.”

That’s second-and-rising, as opposed to America’s first-and-falling.

The American aristocracy’s ever-growing war against Russia posed and poses to Putin two simultaneous challenges: both to reorient away from Russia’s natural resources, which the global aristocracy wants to grab, and also to reorient toward the area of hi-tech in which the Soviets had built a basis from which Russia could become truly cost-effective in international commerce, so as to, simultaneously, increase Russia’s defensive capability against an expanding NATO, while also replacing some of Russia’s dependence upon the natural resources that the West’s aristocrats want to steal.

In other words: Putin designed a plan to meet two challenges simultaneously — military and economic. His primary aim is to protect Russia from being grabbed by the American and Saudi aristocrats, via America’s NATO and the Sauds’ Gulf Cooperation Council and other alliances (which are trying to take over Russia’s ally Syria — Syria being a crucial location for pipelining Arab royals’ oil-and-gas into Europe, the world’s largest energy-market).

In addition, the hit to Russia’s economic growth-rate from the dual-onslaught of Obama’s sanctions and the plunging oil prices hasn’t been too bad. The World Bank’s April 2015 “Russia Economic Report” predicted:

“Growth prospects for 2015-2016 are negative. It is likely that when the full effects of the two shocks become evident in 2015, they will push the Russian economy into recession. The World Bank baseline scenario sees a contraction of 3.8 percent in 2015 and a modest decline of 0.3 percent in 2016. The growth spectrum presented has two alternative scenarios that largely reflect differences in how oil prices are expected to affect the main macro variables.”

The current (as of today) “Russia GDP Annual Growth Rate” at Trading Economics says:

“The Russian economy shrank 3.8 percent year-on-year in the fourth quarter of 2015, following a 4.1 percent contraction in the previous period, according to preliminary estimates from the Economic Development Minister Alexey Ulyukayev. It is the worst performance since 2009 [George W. Bush’s global economic crash], as Western sanctions and lower oil prices hurt external trade and public revenues.”

The World Bank’s report went on to describe “The Government Anti-Crisis Plan”:

On January 27, 2014, the government adopted an anti-crisis plan with the goal to ensure sustainable economic development and social stability in an unfavorable global economic and political environment.

It announced that in 2015–2016 it will take steps to advance structural changes in the Russian economy, provide support to systemic entities and the labor market, lower inflation, and help vulnerable households adjust to price increases. To achieve the objectives of positive growth and sustainable medium-term macroeconomic development the following measures are planned:

• Provide support for import substitution and non-mineral exports;
• Support small and medium enterprises by lowering financing and administrative costs;
• Create opportunities for raising financial resources at reasonable cost in key economic sectors;
• Compensate vulnerable households (e.g., pensioners) for the costs of inflation;
• Cushion the impact on the labor market (e.g. provide training and increase public works);
• Optimize budget expenditures; and
• Enhance banking sector stability and create a mechanism for reorganizing systemic companies.

So: Russia’s anti-crisis plan was drawn up and announced on 27 January 2014, already before Yanukovych was overthrown, even before Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland on 4 February 2014 instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to have appointed to run the government when the coup would be completed (“Yats,” who did  get appointed). Perhaps, in drawing up this plan, Putin was responding to scenes from Ukraine like this. He could see that what was happening in Ukraine was an operation financed by the U.S. CIA. He could recognize what Obama had in mind for Russia.

Putin’s economic plan has softened the economic blow upon the masses, even while it has re-oriented the economy toward what would be the future growth-areas.

The country that Putin in 2000 had taken over and inherited from the drunkard Yeltsin (so beloved by Western aristocrats because he permitted them to skim off so much from it) was a wreck even worse than it had been when the Soviet Union ended. Putin immediately set to work to turn it around, in a way that could meet those two demands.

Apparently, Putin has been succeeding — now even despite what the U.S. aristocracy (and its allied aristocracies in Europe and Arabia) have been throwing to weaken Russia. And the Russian people know it.

PS: The present reporter is an American, and a Democrat, not inclined to condemn Democratic politicians, but Obama’s grab for Russia is not merely exceedingly dangerous for the entire world, it is profoundly unjust, it is also based on his (and most Republicans’) lies, and so I don’t support it, and I no longer support Obama, at all. But this certainly doesn’t mean that I support the Republican Party, which is even worse on this (and other matters) than Democratic politicians are. I support Bernie Sanders, but I am not a part of anyone’s political campaign, in any way. I am rigorously above partisanship, but this doesn’t mean that my views are wishy-washy or vague. To the exact contrary. It clarifies the reality.

An ardent attempt is afoot on Capitol Hill to prevent states from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods – made especially urgent by the fact that Vermont’s labeling bill is set to take effect July 1st.

Although proponents of these foods scored a major victory in July when they induced the House of Representatives to pass a bill (HR 1599) that would ban such state-enacted legislation, a version of that bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate; and because of the intense focus on crafting and passing crucial legislation that will provide necessary funding to keep the federal government functioning, none is likely to be during this session. Accordingly, biotech advocates are endeavoring to get key provisions of HR 1599 attached as a rider to the must-pass appropriations bill – and sneak them into law without meaningful scrutiny and debate.

But this attempt could be quickly foiled by one simple occurrence: the dissemination of a few essential facts. Moreover, if these facts had been widely known in July, HR 1599 could not have even made it through the House. That’s because the bill has always relied on disinformation – and could not survive an open airing of the truth.

The DARK Act’s Survival Depends on Keeping People in the Dark

HR 1599 was artfully titled the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.”

But because it would actually restrict the labeling of GE foods, public interest groups dubbed it the DARK Act (Denying Americans the Right to Know Act). Moreover, not only would that proposed legislation keep consumers in the dark, the legislators were significantly operating in the dark themselves. Indeed, it’s safe to say that virtually every member of the House who voted on that bill – whether for or against – was mistaken about at least one of the key relevant facts.

The false belief that there are no legitimate safety concerns

Some of the greatest confusion involves food safety. For instance, the bill’s sponsor, Congressman Pompeo, declared that consumer demands for labeling of GE foods have nothing to do with health or safety, and its other supporters have backed that assertion and proclaimed that no legitimate food safety concerns exist. Even the main witness who testified against the bill before a congressional committee in 2014 declared that there aren’t any. But this is flat-out false. For example, science-based concerns about the dangers to human health were repeatedly raised in memos written by the technical experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when they analyzed the risks of genetic engineering in 1991. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official who asserted: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”(1)

Such concerns have been expressed in subsequent years by numerous other scientists and scientific institutions as well, including the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the respected medical journal The Lancet. One of the strongest set of cautions appeared within an extensive report issued by the Royal Society of Canada, which declared (a) that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the “default presumption” for every one of them should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects (2).

Laboratory testing has confirmed the legitimacy of the concerns, and a number of well-conducted research studies on GE foods published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have detected statistically significant instances of harm to the laboratory animals that were consigned to consume them. Moreover, a review of the scientific literature on GE foods (itself published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2009) concluded that “most” of the safety assessments have not only indicated problems, but indicated that “many GM [genetically modified] foods have some common toxic effects.” (3)

The erroneous notion that the FDA is responsibly regulating GMOs

Confusion also reigns regarding the adequacy of federal regulation, and it’s widely believed that the FDA is assiduously following the law and subjecting GE foods to rigorous scientific review. But in reality (and as will be seen), that agency has not conducted a genuinely scientific review for any GE food on the market, and far from following the law, it’s been deliberately violating the law’s express mandates in order to enable these products to be marketed without the kinds of testing that the law requires.

Accounting for the Confusion: The Decisive Role of Deception

The widespread misconceptions about GE foods have been created and sustained through the systematic spreading of disinformation by a large number of their proponents. Deplorably, one of the chief spreaders has been the FDA; and if that agency had not routinely distorted the facts – and instead told the truth – the GE food venture would almost surely have collapsed.

For instance, when the FDA issued its policy statement on GE foods in 1992, it claimed it was “not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way,”(4) despite the fact its files contained multiple memos from its own scientists explaining how GE foods do indeed differ, why they pose greater risks, and why none should be presumed safe unless its safety has been demonstrated through rigorous testing.

Moreover, the FDA compounded the fraud by claiming that GE foods were “Generally Recognized as Safe” among experts and could be marketed without the requirement of any safety testing at all, even though its files reveal that it knew there was no expert consensus – and even though the law mandates that foods containing novel substances must be established safe through solid technical evidence (5).

Furthermore, to create the illusion that responsible regulation was being exercised, the agency set up a voluntary consultation process that it claims affords “rigorous” review. But the process is not a genuine scientific review, and the FDA’s Biotechnology Strategic Manager has acknowledged that fact – while admitting that the agency does not even request or receive any original test data (6).

The agency’s shameful behavior continues, and although by now it is well aware of much more information showing that GE foods significantly differ from others, it persists in its bogus claim that it is “not aware” of any; and this blatant falsehood was repeated by an FDA official on October 21st at a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee. She also asserted that the consultation process is so rigorous that it resolves “all safety issues,” which is not only misleading but ridiculous, because the process is far too superficial to achieve such certitude (7).

The Delusions Cannot Last Much Longer

Because the facts weigh so heavily against the GE food venture, and because it has relied on distorting them in order to survive, it cannot long endure. When enough people in general, or even a small number on Capitol Hill, finally learn the truth – and realize the extent to which the truth has been consistently twisted – there will be dramatic change. And if a sufficient dose of enlightenment were to soon suffuse The Hill, the Dark Act would be dead.

Steven M. Druker is Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity

Notes

1) Document 1 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents The FDA covered up the memos from its scientists, and they only came to light because a lawsuit initiated by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity compelled the agency to release its files on GE foods.
2) “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001
3) Dona, A., and I. S. Arvanitouannis (2009) Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49: 164-75.
4) Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991
5) The legal requirements are delineated at 21 CFR Sec. 170.30 (a-b). For a fuller explanation of what the law requires for GRAS status and how the FDA has been violating the requirements, see Chapter 5 of my book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, or my article, “Why the FDA’s Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods is Unscientific, Irresponsible, and Illegal.”
6) Maryanski, J., “Safety Assurance of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology in the United States,” July 1996.
7) Statement of Susan Mayne, PhD, Director, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate, October 21, 2015.

“We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law.”  These words from Texas Governor Greg Abbott say much about the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his conservative dominance on the bench he made his own from 1986.  The Constitution, treated as a substitute divinity, provided the late justice with a range of rationales for his judgments.

What was, then, the primary importance of Scalia?

The Constitutional text, or textualism, as it is sometimes called, provided him with what was meant to be some line in the sand.  In sticking to the text, in so far as reasonable, aberrations might be avoided.  Judicial hands might stay clean, above the fray.  As Scalia noted in Roper v Simmons (2005) citing Alexander Hamilton’s words to the citizens of New York, granting “life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people’s representatives” would pose “little risk” as “[t]he judiciary… ha[s] neither the force or will but merely judgment.”

Not so in the case of Roper, where a divided bench considered that the Constitution prohibits the execution of juveniles.  Scalia thereby saw himself taking the barometric readings of a moral state of affairs – and it was specifically American and exceptioanlist.  In taking this view on the “evolving standards of decency”, the Court “thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards – and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.”  Unfortunately, someone was going to be doing the judging, whatever the outcome.

Scalia did have some scepticism about being able to know the original meaning behind the text.  In a sense, he was not a true “originalist,” in so far as he still permitted a degree of evolutionary intention, something which could only be gathered from previous judgments.  Thus, stare decisis, that onerous and ever present doctrine that keeps judges in check and the law supposedly consistent, was evoked at stages to scold and chide other judges.  Judges, Scalia was found quoting Hamilton in Roper, are “bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.”

Time and time again, he would find himself disagreeing with approaches that seemingly contradicted this stance.  To that end, evolutionary approaches to nature of unions between couples – be there heterosexual or homosexual – were to be dismissed as revolutionary infractions of accepted doctrine.  “Today’s opinion,” he expressed in Lawrence v Texas (2003), a decision striking down a Texas law criminalizing sex between two people of the same sex, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”[1]

The caustic tone continued in Obergerfell v Hodges (2015), which saw Scalia attacking the finding by the majority that same-sex unions were a fundamental constitutional right.  The dissenting judgment commences with a terse observation: “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy”.  Drawing on his own mystical concept of “the People’s wisdom,” he argued in a footnote in the decision that, “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Significantly, Scalia claimed to defer to the wisdom of Congressional and executive authority on subjects of a moral nature. Deciding on the protection of same-sex marriage was hardly within the province of judicial wisdom.  His fellow judges, claimed Scalia in Obergerfell, had effectively ended a debate that had been going on since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  “Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

Such a stance invariably came with its hazards, rendering a powerful arm of government less scrutinising than it might be.  A Court’s balancing act might invariably cancel out certain decisions of the executive. Justice Scalia would treat carefully on that score.

That said, Scalia was not necessarily hostile to the Fourth Amendment guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the insurance of a search warrant based on probable cause.  Given the rampant nature of the surveillance state, the decisions of Kyllo v Unied States (2001) and United States v Jones (2012) still rank as important considerations on intrusive technology.

Kyllo saw the Justice writing for the majority arguing that using a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect heat within its environs constituted a search within the meaning of the amendment.[2]  As the judgment observed, “The Fourth Amendment’s protection of the home has never been tied to measurement of the quality or quantity of information obtained.”

The Supreme Court in Jones similarly held that police needed to obtain a warrant to affix a GPS surveillance device to a car. To use such a tracking device, “and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”[3]

Unfortunately, the post-Snowden questions on the legitimacy of dragnet surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency remain unanswered in the United States’ highest forum, leaving Justice Scalia’s successor a complicated, and challenging legacy.

Perhaps fittingly, Scalia has left a traumatic and speculative maelstrom in his wake, a polarising blast that has affected the entire GOP concerned that the Supreme Court is slipping out of its hands.  President Barack Obama is expected to sit idle, allowing the Court to operate with eight justices.  “We owe it to him and the Nation,” claimed Ted Cruz, “for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.” Hamilton’s notion of a limited judge, indeed!

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

Notes:

Why does the British government buy millions of pounds of generic drugs, for the NHS, from Israeli companies instead of from EU manufacturers and why do we buy arms and defence systems from a non­-European state that is outside NATO, rather than from the 27 member states of the European Union who comprise the NATO alliance with North America?

Israel is not bound by any EU law; is not in Europe and is not a contributor to European democratic values. It continues its illegal six year blockade of essential goods to1.8m civilians in Gaza in a failed attempt to bring about regime change and it continues its illegal settlement agenda in the Occupied Territories in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. These actions deliberately violate the Geneva Conventions and international law and are condemned by both the EU and the UN.

Israel refuses to be a party to the nuclear NPT, Non Proliferation Treaty, or to the international chemical or biological weapons agreements, signed by all EU member states, that ban the manufacture or use of such weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Israeli state is in continuous breach of the human rights provisions of an EU Association Agreement that currently affords it free access to the world’s largest single market: Europe.

Israel’s international lobbyists in cities around the world promote propaganda from their Foreign Ministry intended to exert influence on legislators in Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Canberra and Ottawa, in order to skew foreign and domestic policies of these governments to the political and economic advantage of their own state.

There must be a specific reason that the allegedly pro-European, Cameron government feels obliged to buy many millions of pounds of arms and goods from a maverick state in the Middle East rather than from its own European partners. Perhaps that reason has something to do with a specific lobby in London.

[email protected]   London February 2016

Featured image: General view of United Nations (U.N.) Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura attending a meeting on Syria with representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council (P5) at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, January 13, 2016.  REUTERS/Denis Balibouse   – RTX228S7

February in Geneva. It is utterly frustrating living the daily lie and slander propaganda against Russia and against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, of this ‘neutral’ country, Switzerland, where soon peace talks are expected to begin. The UN hub in Geneva has in the past often served for peace negotiations, for mediation talks, but also failed more often than not, always when the American interests were not accommodated by an agreement.

How could it be different in the case of Syria? – Switzerland, like Brussels, has become the epicentre of European neoliberal politics with a broadcast system emitting half-hourly Putin and Assad bashing news. The first being labelled as a human rights abuser responsible for the Ukrainian war, for the ‘annexation’ of Crimea, for thousands of Syrian deaths and tens of thousands of refugees, as a result of Russia bombarding Syria; refugees stranded and starving at the Turkish border and eventually invading Europe. Mr. Assad is being called a ferocious dictator, who does not shy from killing his own people and has to be removed for the good of the world. There is constant talk about a ‘transition government’, meaning without Mr. Assad, not even remotely considering that Syria is a sovereign nation, and that the Syrian people should have a say in who will be their president – and not at all foreign forces, who are responsible for the criminal massacres and war in the first place.

Mr. Assad and his secular Arab Socialist Ba’ath party is indeed not convenient for the neo-colonial interests of the west. Never mind that he had been re-elected with a more than 80% majority by Syrians, just about 20 months ago. Mr. Gadhafi, who intended with the riches of Libya to free Africa from the continuous economic oppression of the west, was also a socialist at heart and very inconvenient for the fascist capitalist west. Frankly, what Swiss news are portraying is worse than Fox and CNN together and doesn’t make for neutral grounds amenable for peace talks.

Constant western-biased anti-Russia, anti-Assad propaganda is not offering the friendly neutral environment needed to talk seriously about peace. It rather emits an ambiance of negative vibes, a premise for doomed negotiations, even before the talks begin. Add to this, that Washington has absolutely no intention to reach a permanent cessation of armed conflicts, a ‘peace agreement’. All Washington wanted in Munich and will want in Geneva is time and space for its allies-in-crime, the European NATO puppets, the Saudis, the Turks, the Isis – and the ‘moderate rebels’ (sic-sic) to re-arm and regroup.

Washington will never let go – of its objective of regime change in Syria. It is not in their game plan; it’s not in the cards, it’s not part of the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) which is still highly valid and being followed almost to the letter. The PNAC pursues total submission of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) – and ultimately full spectrum dominance and world supremacy, control of all the globe’s resources and of all the globe’s people. A dispensable army of slaves. In fact, this massive army of serfs is much too large for the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon empire’s taste. These people cost too much; they eat too much; they use too many resources.

And here we come to a number of the monster’s multiple destructive tentacles: The people-mass eventually has to be reduced to about a billion or two. Easier to control and manage. The Rockefeller / Kissinger dictum of the fifties and sixties – from which emerged an economy of control: GMO-agriculture that can inflict famine, infertility (as already tested in the 1990s in India) and deadly or debilitating diseases. Another tentacle spreads biological and disease warfare, take the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014 and the recent Zika outbreak, not coincidentally emerging and being tested in Central and South America, notably in Brazil, a country Washington wants to subdue and dominate, much like they have managed in Argentina with an ‘election coup’

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/argentina-a-quiet-neoliberal-coup-detat-in-latin-americas-southern-cone/5492654

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/argentina-revisited-one-month-on-towards-a-neoliberal-democratic-dictatorship/5502615).

The Zika virus has been created in the early sixties, is patented and is owned by the Rockefeller Foundation

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-zika-virus/5505323).

Yet another killer-arm of the Washington monster is inflicting mass destruction through the western dollar-based financial system, as We the People continue witnessing in Greece, without even a hint of interfering in solidarity with our European brothers. Nothing, zilch. Self-styled King Obama knows there is no risk of interference by Europe. His puppet, Draghi, a Goldman Sachs exec, and President of the so-called European Central Bank (sic) is directing the European economy on behalf of the FED. Mr. Draghi is the epitome of a hypocrite.

The European un-leaders are bought by neo-capitalism and its projected personal gains for them. They are spineless stooges without courage of standing up for their sovereign rights. Anybody, any nation who would dare to intervene on behalf of Greece, on behalf of European solidarity, on behalf of the cradle of Europe and of Democracy itself, is scared to be sanctioned, economically, or if must be, by assassination. As a daily occurrence, killer drones – all approved by Assassin-in-Chief Mr. Obama himself – are launched from the US main military base in Europe, the Ramstein airbase in Germany, the stronghold of Europe who has sold her soul and honor to the Anglo-Zionist empire, based in Washington, with branches in Tel-Aviv and Brussels.

The EU is so subjugated to the nefarious White House – Pentagon – FED-cum-Wall Street ‘troika’ – for reasons which are difficult to comprehend – that they keep obeying orders for ‘sanctioning’ Russia, like pathetic masochists. These sanctions hurt Europe much more than they hurt Russia. We are made to believe that Russia’s economy suffers tremendously, that Russians become increasingly unhappy with their government, that Russia is at the brink of breaking down with social upheavals. This is far from correct. Maybe that would be the case, if Russia were still to depend on the west, as she did when Gorbachev and Yeltsin sold out the Russian Federation to Washington in the 1990s. But Russia is no longer dependent on the west. Russia and China have forged a new alliance with the remaining BRICS (Brazil, India and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and Iran. The truth is that Mr. Putin still has an approval rating of close to 80%.

So – what chance for Syria? – Let it not be forgotten, the empire will never let go, not as long as it is still kicking. And kicking it is, though ever more feebly – but ever more ferociously, as does a dying beast. The United States and her vassal allies are on a deadly amok rampage which includes Syria and the entire MENA region. Any country in the path of resistance, like Venezuela, Brazil, Iran, Syria, Palestine and others – will never be free and at peace, no matter how many billions are spent on fake peace talks, and even make-believe Peace Accords, see Iran – these countries are intended to eventually go the way of Libya, or the way of Greece – or both – unless – unless Europe wakes up. Granted, it would almost take a revolution. But it is never too late. Over the past few months there has been plenty of talk by EU/EC officials, including Jean-Claude Junker, President of the European Commission, that the EU and its common currency are at the verge of collapse. Do they actually believe it? Or is it again sheer propaganda? It doesn’t really matter, but a collapse might be the solution for countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland – back to their roots, regroup and rehabilitate their economy as sovereign nations.

This is the premise we have to keep in mind when we talk about possible ‘solutions’ to the “Syria crisis”, the “refugee crisis”, the “economic crisis”, even “the oil crisis”. They are all fabricated. While the western elite is in charge and We, the People, allow the empire to lash around the world with economic sanctions, with bombs, with threats of a nuclear WWIII – and nobody even remotely seems to attempt stopping the monster (except for Russia) – there is simply no chance in heaven and on earth that our globe will be able to live in harmony and peace. To have a chance at peace, the multi-tentacled monster must be subdued and silenced. And we are not talking about more blood. It is a question of countries like Switzerland which had a historic reputation of diplomatic mediation to wake up, to shed their fears of Washington, regain full sovereignty and regain their prowess of independence and autonomy to act as a fair and honest peace broker. The same applies to the rest of Europe: Wake up!

What is of course never mentioned by the main stream media pundits, who pretend knowing every detail so arrogantly well, down to the populace convincing details, is that this war was instigated by the CIA already in 2007, identifying and training their terror organizations, leading in 2011 to a full-fledged civil war under the pretext of the Arab Spring (sic) against the legitimate, democratically elected President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. That’s not all: these terrorist groups have now permanent US / NATO advisors, permanent funding from the US, NATO and EU NATO countries, the Saudis, Qatar and Turkey.

Russia’s Prime Minister, Dimitri Medvedev, when he recently talked to Euro News, made a few excellent points, about Russian sovereignty and Russia’s growing economic independence from the west. But he seems to still be dreaming of ‘coming to an agreement with our [western] colleagues and partners on key issues [on Syria]…’ – what is meant with colleagues and partners are the US and its European minions. – Mr. Medvedev, what does it take to get real, to face reality? There is no intention of the US and its allies-in-crime to reach an agreement on Syria, under which Syria would remain a sovereign nation, that would be honoured by the west. Everything is fake. The ‘serious’ peace talks are fake. Look at Palestine. Fifty years of ‘Peace Talks’, but the Israeli killing (with full US consent) of Palestinians and the destruction of their legitimate home land is today more brutal than ever.

How, Mr. Medvedev, could such peace talks be real if the main protagonist, the government of Bashar al-Assad is not even invited to the table in Munich or eventually in Geneva? How can that be real? Terrorists and assassins, like the Saudis, the Turks, Washington and their common brain-children, the IS terrorists in various forms and shapes, including ‘soft or moderate opposition groups’ are there. Moderate opposition – Media pundits, give us a break! – Even a Pentagon general not long ago admitted it was difficult to identify the five or six moderate rebels, whose training cost the US hundreds of millions. Does this speak for peace, or for war, for more bloodshed? How come, Mr. Medvedev, the legitimate leader of the Syrian Republic, whose fate is being discussed, is not invited? Does this give you hope to eventually reach an agreement with those criminals you would like to see as ‘colleagues and partners’, whose only goal is ‘regime change’? – With all due respect, Mr. Prime Minister, facing reality is healthier than being disappointed time and again.

Then there is the illusion that the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed and therefore in force and being implemented. Do you realize, Mr. Medvedev, that the United States never honors any agreement that does not serve them and has absolutely no intention, never had, to implement this or any other arms reduction treaty? To the country. You must be aware that Washington and the Pentagon just a few days ago announced with big fanfare to quadruplicate the military budget for NATO in Europe, putting more men and tanks and missiles closer to the Russian border. This is not exactly an arms reduction – wouldn’t you say?

Perhaps and most likely you know this all. But playing the ‘diplomatic hope card’ vis-à-vis these warrior thugs does not – never – incite them to be honest peace makers. To the contrary, when Washington and its European cronies see Russia’s desperate attempt to make friends with the west, they just further demolish, denigrate, vilify and deceive Russia through their presstitute media, so as to ridicule any truthful Russian effort to seek world harmony rather than conflict.

To witness how Washington thinks and acts by imposing punishment (sanctions) and lifting them (the carrot and stick approach), just look at Iran – some of the sanctions were barely lifted a few weeks ago, when new ones were imposed. And the game goes on. In the foreseeable future no authentic and truthful coalition or military cooperation is likely between your country, Mr. Medvedev, which has candid intentions, and the deceptive west, not as long as the monster is breathing.

If the US is calling the shots on Syria peace talks, whenever and wherever they may take place, with the legitimate government of Syria not even present, there is no hope for Syria. Russia must be firm. Regime change is not on the table. The people of the sovereign nation of Syria are the only ones to elect their president. This principle must be upheld, not only for Syria’s sake, but it must set a precedent for other cases to follow.

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.

Featured image: Two BLU-108 canisters, one with with two skeet (submunitions) still attached, found in the al-Amar area of al-Safraa in northern Yemen’s Saada governorate after an attack on April 27, 2015.

A Saudi Arabia-led coalition is using recently transferred US-manufactured cluster munitions in civilian areas of Yemen contrary to US export requirements.

Every villain needs a safe house and the Islamic State (IS) is no exception. Luckily for IS, it has two, possibly three waiting for it, all of them courtesy of NATO and in particular the United States.

The war in Syria has been going particularly poor for IS. With Russian air power cutting their supply lines with Turkey and the Syrian Arab Army closing in, it may soon be time for them to shop for a new home.

If the war is going bad for IS, it is going even worse for the supporting powers that have armed and funded them. To understand where IS might go next, one must first fully understand those supporting powers behind them. The premeditated creation of IS and revelations of the identity of their supporters were divulged in a Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo first published in 2012.

It admitted:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Before the Syrian war, there was Libya…

The DIA memo is important to remember, as is the fact that before the Syrian conflict, there was the Libyan war in which NATO destroyed the ruling government of Muammar Qaddafi and left what one can only described as an intentional and very much premeditated power vacuum in its place. Within that vacuum it would be eventually revealed through the death of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens that from the Libyan city of Benghazi, weapons and militants were being shipped by the US State Department first to Turkey, then onward to invade northern Syria.

And it appears the terrorists have been moving back and forth both ways through this US-sponsored terror pipeline. IS has since announced an official presence in Libya, and Libya now stands as one of several “safe houses” IS may use when finally pushed from Syria altogether by increasingly successful joint Syrian-Russian military operations.

Before Libya, there was Iraq… 

Iraq, devastated by a nearly decade-long US invasion and occupation, has teetered on the edge of fracture for years. Sectarian extremism is eagerly promoted by some of the US’ strongest regional allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. The US itself has been cultivating and encouraging the separatist proclivities of select Kurdish groups (while allowing Turkey to invade and torment others) in the north, while Wahhabi extremists seek to dominate the north and northwest of Iraq.

IS itself has made its way into all of these trouble spots, coincidentally. And should the terrorist organization be flushed for good from Syria, it may find these spots yet another “safe house” that surely would not have existed had the US not intervened in Iraq, divided and weakened it and to this day worked to keep it divided and weak.

Before Iraq there was Afghanistan..

Of course, and perhaps the most ironic of all of IS’ potential “safe houses,” there is Afghanistan. Part of the alleged reasoning the United States embarked on its war in Afghanistan, stretching from 2001 to present day, was its supposed desire to deny terrorists a safe haven there.

Yet not only are terrorists still using the country as a safe haven, as pointed out in great detail by geopolitical analyst Martin Berger, the US intervention there has created a resurgence of the illegal illicit narcotics trade, and in particular a huge resurgence of opium cultivation, processing and exporting. This means huge financial resources for IS and its supporters to perpetuate its activities there, and help them project their activities well beyond.

Berger’s analysis lays out precisely the sort of narco-terrorist wonderland the US intervention has created, one so perfect it seems done by design, a blazing point on a much larger arc of intentionally created instability.

Where Russian bombs cannot follow… 

Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan would be ideal locations to move IS. Libya’s state of intentionally created lawlessness gives the US and its allies a fair degree of plausible deniability as to why they will be unable to “find” and “neutralize” IS. It will be far more difficult for Russia to organize military resources to effectively strike at IS there. Even in Iraq, Russia has significant hurdles to overcome before it could begin operating in Iraq to follow IS there, and only if the Iraqi government agreed.

Afghanistan would be problematic as well. The ghosts of Russia’s war in Afghanistan still linger, and the US is already deeply entrenched, allegedly fighting a terrorist menace that seems only to grow stronger and better funded by the presence of American troops.

But while IS will be safe from complete destruction in Syria, where it looks like finally Damascus and its allies have begun to prevail, relocating outside of Syria and its allies arc of influence in the Middle East will drastically reduce its ability to fulfill its original purpose for being, that is, the destruction of that very arc of influence.

Furthermore, its reappearance elsewhere may change regional geopolitical dynamics in unpredictable ways. It is very unlikely IS’ new neighbors will wish to sit idly by while it broods. Libya’s neighbors in Egypt and Algeria, Afghanistan’s neighbors in Pakistan, China and Iran, and Iraq itself along with Syria and Lebanon, all may find themselves drawn closer together in purpose to eliminate IS in fear that it may eventually be turned on any one of them as it was on Syria.

What is least likely is that those “supporting powers” realize this is a trick tried one time too many. While that is certainly true, it appears to be the only trick these powers have left. They will likely keep IS around for as long as possible, if for no other reason but to exhaust its enemies as they attempt to chase it to the ends of the earth.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Solidarity with Ghana represented over a century of identification with the homeland

Five decades ago on Feb. 24, 1966, a coup was carried out against Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the leader of the Ghana independence movement and the chief architect of the 20th century African revolutionary struggle.

Nkrumah, the founder of the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) in 1949, which led the former British colony of the Gold Coast to national independence in 1957, was out of Ghana on a peace mission aimed at bringing an end to the United States intervention in Vietnam. The president had stopped over in Beijing, Peoples Republic of China, for consultations with Premier Chou En-lai and had planned to continue on to Hanoi.

When Nkrumah later met with Chou he informed him that there had been a military coup in Ghana. His initial reaction was disbelief yet the Chinese leader told him that these setbacks were in the course of the revolutionary struggle.

The coup was carried out by lower-ranking military officers and police officials with the direct assistance and coordination by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department. Leading members of the CPP were killed, arrested and driven into exile while the party press was seized along with the national radio and television stations.

CPP offices were attacked by counter-revolutionary mobs encouraged by the CIA and the military-police clique that had seized power. Books by Nkrumah and other socialist leaders were trashed and burned.

Cadres from various national liberation movements who had taken refuge in Ghana and were receiving political and military training were deported by the coup leaders who called themselves the “National Liberation Council” (NLC). Other fraternal allies of the Ghanaian and African Revolutions were fired from their jobs within the government, the educational sector and media affairs.

The CIA involvement was widely believed to be pivotal at the time but in later years firm documented proof was brought to light with the declassification of State Department files which originated under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. A letter of protest had been sent by U.S. Undersecretary of State for African Affairs, G. Mennen Williams, to the Ghana embassy in Washington during late 1965 in the aftermath of the publication of Nkrumah’s book “Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism”, which outlined the central role of Washington and Wall Street in the continuing underdevelopment of Africa.

Nkrumah and African American History

Kwame Nkrumah was born in the Nzima region of Ghana at Nkroful in 1909. He would later travel to the U.S. in 1935 to pursue higher education at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, the first Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in the country founded during slavery in 1854.

Lincoln was an ideal atmosphere for Nkrumah who studied the social sciences, philosophy and theology. He became involved in the African American struggle through work with the African Students Association where he served as president for several years as well as the Council on African Affairs with Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, Dr. William A. Hunton and Paul Robeson.

He became a licensed Presbyterian clergyman giving him access to speaking engagements in numerous African American churches. Nkrumah worked during his college days doing odd jobs and experiencing severe economic deprivation.

Leaving the U.S. in 1945, Nkrumah settled in Britain for two years where he helped organized the historic Fifth Pan-African Congress at Manchester in October of that year. The gathering was chaired by Du Bois and enjoyed the participation of other leading figures within the African liberation movements including George Padmore of Trinidad, who had worked with the Communist International during the late 1920s and early 1930s; Amy Ashwood Garvey, the first wife of Marcus Garvey, who held left-leaning politics; Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya; along with representatives of trade unions, farmers’ organizations and students.

After Nkrumah returned to Ghana in late 1947 and with the founding of the CPP less than two years later, he would land in prison twice for organizing against British imperialism. Due to his party’s mass support during a colonial-controlled reform election in February 1951, Nkrumah was released from prison and appointed Leader of Government Business as part of a transitional arrangement towards independence won later in March 1957.

Nkrumah MLK

During the independence period Ghana became a haven for African American political figures, artists, professionals and business people. Some within this group became staunch defenders of the Nkrumah government which was under increasing pressure from the CIA and the State Department after 1961.

Nkrumahs and Dubois

Several hundred African Americans took up residence in Ghana including Maya Angelou, a writer, dancer and supporter of African liberation movements; Alice Windom of St. Louis, a social worker and educator who helped organize the itinerary of Malcolm X when he travelled to Ghana in May 1964; Vicki Holmes Garvin, a labor activist and member of the Communist Party served as a co-worker with Robert and Mabel Williams in China several years later after leaving Ghana; Julius Mayfield, a novelist and essayist who left the U.S. amid the attacks on Robert Williams, worked in Ghana as a journalist and editor of African Review, a Pan-Africanist journal in support of the CPP government; W.E.B. Du Bois was given Ghanaian citizenship and appointed as the director of the Encyclopedia Africana; Shirley Graham Du Bois, the second wife of Dr. Du Bois, a political organizer, member of the Communist Party, prolific writer and producer, was appointed by Nkrumah to head Ghana National Television; among others.

Malcolm X in Ghana with Maya Angelou, Julius Mayfield, Alice Windom, Vicki Garvin

After the coup in February 1966, most of the progressive African Americans were forced to leave Ghana due to the pro-imperialist character of the NLC regime. Dr. Du Bois had died in August 1963. However, his wife who worked as a leading figure in the Ghana government was placed under house arrest by the military-police officials. Shirley Graham Du Bois left Ghana and later lived in Egypt and China where she died in 1976.

 U.S. Imperialism Continues Destabilization of Africa

Five decades later the CIA and State Department are still heavily engaged in destabilization of African states and progressive movements. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), founded in 2008, is constructing airstrips, drone stations and military bases in various regions across the continent. The anti-imperialist struggle in regard to interventions in Africa is just as relevant today as it was in 1966.

African American political organizations played a key role in influencing Nkrumah from the 1930s, until his removal from power in 1966 and beyond, right up until his death in 1972 in Romania. Although the overthrow of the Nkrumah government was designed by U.S. imperialism to halt the advance of the African Revolution and the internationalization of the struggle of African Americans, solidarity efforts accelerated from the late 1960s through the 1990s when the last vestiges of white-minority rule were eliminated in South Africa and Namibia.

Younger generations of African American activists can gain much from the study of the intersection between the struggle for liberation inside the U.S., the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and the African continent. It was during this period after the conclusion of World War II and extending to the beginning of the 21^st century that tremendous gains were won in the areas of national liberation, Pan-African unity and socialist-orientation.

Today with a strong emphasis being placed on the demonstrations against the use of lethal force against African Americans by the police and vigilantes, identification with broader struggles taking place within the African world are often overlooked. Despite the ideological advances of the previous period where people of African descent began to identify as African Americans, there appears to be an uncritical reversion back to a U.S.-centered approach resurrecting “blackness” in contravention to notions of an “African Personality and Pan-Africanism” advanced by Nkrumah and his collaborators.

These developments, if gone unchecked, will break off the African American movement from its most natural allies among like-minded forces within the entire African world. In addition, with a lack of emphasis on internationalism, the African American struggle will be hard pressed to reach its full potential through winning allies throughout the world.

A follow-up of the interview, given by the American political analyst Andrew Korybko to the Macedonian agency NetPress. He speaks about the wider geopolitical context of the Macedonian turmoil – refugee crisis in Europe, Balkan pipelines projects, Russia-China alliance to counter hegemonic world order and calls to build resistance networks. The first part of the exclusive English source of the interview is available here.

***

Q: The subordinate attitude that the European Union has in relation to the United States has resulted in a serious refugee and migrant crisis afflicting the continent. The agenda of destabilizing, weakening, and demographically changing Europe, implemented primarily by the Soros machinery, is no longer a conspiracy theory but an obvious fact. The terrorist attacks in Paris, as well as the sexual and physical assaults across Germany, don’t seem to be causing serious changes in official Berlin’s policy regarding the continuous reception of huge numbers of migrants and refugees.

Why is it that the leading European leaders in this matter work not only against their national interests, but also against those of Europe in general? And how do you comment on the measures that the Macedonian government has been implementing in this context and the efforts of the Western machinery to stop the decision to protect our border with Greece from illegal entries with a fence?

The first thing that I need to do is refresh our audience with my analysis of the “refugee” crisis. It’s a byproduct of the wars that the US helped engineer all throughout the Mideast, using the so-called “Arab Spring” events to usher in a theater-wide regime change scenario. The brave and patriotic resistance of the Syrian people in fighting back against the terrorists for over five years now was a major impediment in the US’ plans for retaining its unipolar hegemony in the region. Realizing that one of the expected tangential results of its War on Syria would be the massive increase in refugees (both international and internal), the US sought to weaponize this human flow in order to achieve one of the other important grand objectives that it’s had, which is to deepen its control over the EU.

None of this is a ‘conspiracy theory’ either, as I warmly welcome your audience to read to the work from Cornell University’s Kelly M. Greenhill about “Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion” (available for free PDF download here). The author summarized some of the key findings from her 2010 book (available for sale here if anyone was interested) in proving that refugees have been exploited as strategic weapons since at least the end of World War II, documenting at least 56 incidences of this occurring. The way that it relates to the present predicament is that Turkey had already built several refugee-hosting facilities along its border with Syria since before the war even began, obviously expecting some sort of oncoming influx. After ‘incubating’ the two million or so refugees that entered the country over the past couple of years, Turkey, in coordination with the US, ‘set them free’ from their movement-restricted refugee camps and utilized intelligence-affiliated drug and human trafficking networks to bring them to Europe, including the Albanian mafia in the Balkans.

The goal was to create the socio-political circumstances where once previously peaceful and stable EU societies, hitherto largely ethno-religiously homogenous in terms of their demographics, were now overwhelmed to such an extent by an unexpected flood of civilizationally dissimilar individuals (both in terms of the sheer size of this wave and the perception that the recipient population has of it) that they would remain in a state of tense and easily manipulatable division for the foreseeable future. There would obviously be a vocal outcry against this, both by pragmatic patriots and nefarious fascist-affiliated provocateurs, which would divide society along the triple strata of citizen vs. citizen, citizen vs. government, and citizen vs. refugee. These are near-perfect ‘laboratory’ conditions for utilizing Color Revolution threats against the targeted government, since experienced external actors such as US intelligence agencies could easily exploit the situation on command in order to prompt uncontrollable riots and guaranteed violence, be it in patriots fighting against fascists, “refugees” attacking regular citizens, or a panicked government responding with unnecessary and disproportionate violence to a subjectively peaceful anti-government demonstration.

The purpose of achieving such a strong degree of control over the EU via this Machiavellian mechanism is to keep the EU and its strongest states in an indefinite state of weakness and tension, thereby giving Washington the blackmailing upper hand in provoking destabilizing violence if its European subordinates don’t support its hegemonic policies and instead turn their back on the US by pragmatically working with Russia and China. To explain, Germany is totally vulnerable to ethno-religious destabilization if it moves too closely and rapidly in its rapprochement with Russia, and the same goes for France. Additionally, the heightened military and police measures that these states have found necessary to implement in order to try to control their borders and internal situations means that they’ll expand their respective budgets for the coming years by taking these pressing factors into account. It goes without saying that the US would find a way to divert this money into its ‘partners’’ NATO ‘commitments’ in ‘paying their fair share’ to ‘contain Russia’. Finally, pro-American forces inside the EU can start promoting the talking point that the TPP is the best way to ‘create jobs’ for the “refugees” and newly unemployed Europeans, when in reality this is only a means of “lawfare” in institutionalizing the US’ control over Europe and preventing it from ever independently negotiating a trade agreement with China.

It must be said at this point that there are legitimate refugees and then there are what I term “economic piggybackers”, or what are more politely and more commonly referred to as “economic migrants”. I draw a difference between the latter two because an “economic migrant” actually wants to work for his or her share of Euros or whatever other currency they may be receiving, whereas an “economic piggybacker” wants to abuse the EU’s generous welfare state privileges and live a comfortable life without contributing anything. Unfortunately, many of the people that have entered the EU as a result of this manufactured crisis are economic piggybackers and they regretfully tarnish the reputation of legitimate refugees and only make the situation more difficult for those that sincerely need as much help as they can get.

Having explained the essential background context for the “refugee” crisis and its strategic imperatives vis-à-vis the US’ grand unipolar designs, we can now talk about why Merkel and others are so blatantly working against their national and continental interests. It was already explained that Germany is being strategically blackmailed, and not only that, Turkey is literally forcing billions of euros worth of economic concessions from the EU in exchange for its ‘compliance’ in this crisis. Spineless bureaucrats can’t say no in the face of intimidating bullies, and they meekly agree to whatever is being demanded of them. There’s also the possibility that the US’ globally embedded NSA surveillance system, specifically targeting politicians in many cases, is to blame as well, since it’s plausible that the US government has some kind of physical blackmail that they can use against individual EU leaders such as Merkel (e.g. if it turned out that she was a closet lesbian and they had proof). Sometimes a single or a handful of blackmailed individuals at the upper echelons of government can be all that an external power needs to control the entire state apparatus, but other times it’s necessary to take ‘precautions’ and ‘guarantee’ success by influencing on-the-ground factors such as wide-scale demographic engineering and the manufactured creation of socio-political conflict (i.e. Color Revolution social and structural preconditioning).

The final explanation addressing the feebleness of EU leaders in defending their national and continental interests is that quite a lot of them are Cultural Marxists, including Merkel for the most part. What is meant by this is that these individuals believe in the most radical form of leftist ideology, which the author has previously at times termed “hyper liberal-progressivism”, which is pretty much the same thing in this context. As it relates to the topic at hand, Cultural Marxists/hyper liberal-progressives categorically deny the existence of socio-cultural differences between individuals and blindly believe that all people have the same set of psychologically conditioned traits. These ideas manifest themselves through the anti-religious promotion of homosexual privileges such as “gay marriage” (including with state-supported benefits) and an open-door policy to civilizationally dissimilar “refugees”, while simultaneously refusing per the latter to acknowledge that there are embedded socio-cultural psychologically preconditioned differences between the ‘new arrivals’ and the native locals that could instigate identity tensions. These concepts are so abnormal and fringe that not even the Marxist-espousing states of the Soviet Union and China practiced them, instead keeping homosexuality out of the public purview and giving preference to ethnic minorities through the granting of autonomous territories and government preferences (“korenizatsiya” in Russian).

If we look at what the Republic of Macedonia and its leadership have chosen to do, it’s the complete opposite of what the EU has done. Prime Minister Grueveski and the National Security Council acutely recognized that their country is on the literal frontlines in the US’ unconventional campaign against the EU and that decisive action needed to urgently be taken. Adhering to its international obligations, Macedonia allows legitimate refugees fleeing the war-torn countries of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to transit its territory en route to their further destinations, and those that would sincerely like to integrate and assimilate into Macedonian society are warmly welcomed to do so. For better or for worse, most of them are not interested in this and are eager to get to the welfare ‘utopias’ of Germany and Sweden.

Macedonia wouldn’t have had to take the step of building border fortifications in order to defend its sovereignty and more efficiently process the tens of thousands of refugees and economic piggybackers streaming into the country if Greece had done its fair share in helping to stem this flow. That absolutely hasn’t happened in any single way, and Athens has eschewed its legal responsibilities in handling the situation for a variety of reasons. This could partly be blamed on the overwhelming nature of the situation at hand and the fact that the penniless government simply doesn’t have the economic resources to deal with it, but on the other hand, Syriza’s Cultural Marxist ideals and the antipathy that some Greek authorities feel towards the Republic of Macedonia and its independent and proud identity undoubtedly played a role. Per the last remark, there is no other way to explain why the Greek government directed the refugees and economic piggybackers to the Macedonian border when they could have just as easily (and in some cases, even more easily) been transported to the Albanian and Bulgarian ones instead. The US obviously has an interest in seeing this human tidal wave crash into the Balkans and unbalance each and every transit state it passes through, but that by itself doesn’t explain the sheer enormity of individuals that the Greek authorities and civil society conscientiously chose to place on Macedonia’s southern doorstep.

What the Republic of Macedonia and its leadership has chosen to do is courageously defy the US and its Cultural Marxist proxies in the EU and make a strong stand for national sovereignty, which by extension also supports the security and independence of the rest of Europe. It’s for these reasons why the Soros network, the wealthy US government-allied transnational network of Cultural Marxists and anti-border/anti-sovereignty individuals, hates Macedonia so much at the current moment, even more than they ever have before.

Q: The aggressive actions of the Western dirty players in their attempts to retain dominance in the unipolar world, as opposed to the multipolar approach offered by the BRICS countries like Russia and China, is a conflict that will continue in the New Year. What will happen in the region around Macedonia in 2016 in this context, especially regarding the 2 major roadmaps with BRICS for the Balkan (Turkish) stream project as well as for the Balkan Silk Road?

Let’s begin by talking about what could be in store for the Balkan region before I speak more specifically about Balkan Stream and the Balkan Silk Road. Up north, the US has provoked aCroatian-Serbian missile race in order to raise tensions, pressure Serbia, and create a pretext for deepening the American and NATO footprint in the area. The pressure point between these two rival states is Bosnia, which is going through its own internal crisis at the moment. At no point before in its post-war history has Sarajevo behaved as legally and physically aggressive against Republika Srpska as it has now, and this is pushing Banja Luka into a corner where it’s forced to defend its constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty. The US would like for President Dodik to lose his cool and react in a violent manner, which would then create the pretense for openly working towards the dismantlement of Republika Srpska’s existence, seen by American strategists as a major impediment for the Balkans’ incorporation into the unipolar fold.

With Sarajevo stating that it will formally apply for EU membership this year, Brussels will be more involved in the country’s affairs than ever, and this renewed focus on its domestic dynamics will serve as the ‘plausible’ reason for the bloc to bully Republika Srpska in the future. Let’s not forget that a small-scale terrorist attack already occurred in Zvornik and one was narrowly foiled in Janja. In such a tense situation as the one that currently exists between the Muslim-Croat entity and Republika Srpska, all it may take to set the entire unit aflame is one strategically directly terrorist attack. Serbia is also vulnerable to terrorism (both Albanian- and ISIL/Wahhabi-affiliated) in Sandzak and the Presevo Valley, but also in other parts of the countries possibly traversed by “refugee”-pretending terrorists. However, the most discernable destabilization scenario in Serbia comes from the actions of the Serbian government itself, particularly Prime Minister Vucic’s surprise announcement to hold elections two years before schedule.

This announcement was made in order to catch his political opponents off guard and deny them the opportunity to properly run a competitive political campaign, but it also reveals that Vucic is not at all confident that he’ll still have the public’s support by 2018. It appears as though he predicts that the domestic situation will deteriorate to such a level that he’ll be embarrassingly voted out of office by a huge margin (similar to how Zaev is expected to lose the forthcoming elections in April), which explains why he feels compelled to summon the little remaining political capital that he still has left in order to hold on to power and push forward with his pro-EU agenda. That’s another thing, too, and it’s that his preferred policy in attempting to balance between the US/EU and Russia is untenable. Russia sees no problem with it so long as Serbia doesn’t advance towards NATO, but then again, Serbia signed an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with the military bloc almost exactly one year ago, which was an unnecessary step taken solely to further ingratiate the Vucic government towards the West. Anyhow, it’s the US, not Russia, which will eventually apply pressure on Serbia and force it to choose sides, just as it did to Ukraine, and predictably, with similarly destructive results if this scenario advances (especially if Vucic betrays his countrymen and de-facto recognizes “Kosovo” as ‘independent’).

Moving along, the NATO-occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo is a complete mess, a failed state by any metrics. It’s a drug- and human-trafficking powerbase for the Albanian mafia, and it’s also bleeding thousands of disaffected people a year that flee to Central and Western Europe in order to escape the social devastation. ISIL, and Wahhabism in general, has made strong inroads there, and there’s a real fear that the totally dysfunctional entity of “Kosovo” might turn into a European base for jihadists, most likely with the full backing of the American instructors at Camp Bondsteel (the same forces who advised the Kumanovo terrorists). Neighboring Montenegro is in a very unpredictable situation, but it looks like there’s a high risk of political violence sometime in the near future. The opposition won’t back down in their appeal that the government put its unilateral NATO-joining decision up to a public referendum, but contrarily, Djukanovic is dedicated to retaining power at all costs, including the use of wanton violence against his people. This makes for an explosive situation that could blow up again at any time, especially as the country progressively moves closer to the day that it becomes a formal member of the pro-American bloc.

On Macedonia’s western flank, Albania is prone to experiencing more political unrest if its domestic problems don’t subside and the government doesn’t find a way to properly deal with them (they seem neither eager to do so nor even capable of this if they wanted to). One of the less-discussed consequences of the “refugee” crisis has been that the EU isn’t as welcoming to illegal Albanian migrants as it was before, and if anything, these Balkan emigrants are seen as less urgent of a people to accommodate than Mideast- and North African-originating ones, so Albania no longer has as unrestricted access to the socio-economic pressure valve that it had earlier depended on for years. The return of deported Albanians to the country and the arrival of their Kosovo-based counterparts in desperate search of work are creating a situation where people are finally beginning to direct their anger against the real culprit, the Albanian authorities. It’s likely that the decrease in Albanian emigration and the continued arrival of Kosovo-originating Albanians will lead to more political protests such as the ones that shook Tirana in early December, panicking the authorities and leading to their reactionary impulse in promoting the savage myth of “Greater Albania”. If the agitated masses fall for this ploy just like they did when it was last evoked in full during the 1997 crisis, then it’s foreseeable that Macedonia will inevitably be victimized by this virus just as Serbia was at the end of the last century.

Looking to the east, Bulgaria remains an oligarchic state with a barely functioning government. Civil society and the economy still exist, but the state is all but invisible except in matters pertaining to taxation, extortion, and any other type of money-making enterprise that the elite can partake in against the population. In fact, except for these instances, the Bulgarian government only really shows itself whenever the US, NATO, or the EU need something from them, remaining practically invisible for the rest of the time. Bulgaria is sadly a shadow of its former self, and it represents the archetypical vassal state that the US wants to replicate the world over. Greece is regretfully somewhat similar, except the oligarchy that operates there is mostly foreign-based. The Cultural Marxist coalition that governs the country is slightly more visible in civil affairs, although it’s shown no interest in defending the country’s sovereignty from the refugees and economic piggybackers that the US has unleashed against it. If anything, it actually aims to facilitate this process judging by its radical ideological precepts and how actively they’ve ushered these individuals towards the Macedonian border. However, Syriza is in a tight position, with discontent rising from both fellow leftists and right-wing elements (including fascist ones), and the civil war- and military coup-era hostilities between the Left and the Right might violently burst back to the forefront of domestic affairs if Tsipras isn’t careful (or if the US sees the need to do this in intensifying its control over the country).

Shifting the focus to speak more about the regional multipolar processes that are underway, I’d like to direct the audience’s attention to my article from late November where I spoke about the current state of Balkan Stream and the Balkan Silk Road in-depth (accessible here). To summarize, Balkan Stream is indefinitely suspended due to Turkey’s aggression against Russia by shooting down its anti-terrorist jet in Syria, but in the event that Erdogan leaves office (be it through a democratic uprising, constitutional or military coup, or otherwise), however unlikely that may appear at the moment, the project will immediately be continued. Still, things don’t look too good for its viability in the short-term, so it’s better to concentrate on the Balkan Silk Road. This project, if the audience isn’t all that familiar, is China’s plan to construct a high-speed rail network from Budapest to the Greek port of Piraeus via Belgrade and Skopje. The meeting late last year between China and the Central and Eastern European countries (the China-CEE format) in Suzhou saw Beijing officially committing to the Budapest-to-Belgrade portion of the project. When and if it’s completed, then this would give the Balkans an economic alternative to the EU, thereby safeguarding their sovereignty but also presenting a transit route for strong multipolar influence into the heart of Europe. Accordingly, the US is fearful that it could lose its influence over the continent and thus wants the project scuttled, which could happen if the Republic of Macedonia is thrown into Hybrid War chaos.

I discuss more of the details in the aforementioned link and strongly encourage all interested readers to check it out, but for the most part, the Balkan Silk Road is much more of a current target of the US’ destabilizing designs than the now-suspended Balkan Stream is. In spite of this, Russia is not giving up on engaging the region, as although energy played an important role in its plans, it wasn’t the sole determinant. Russian investment and diplomatic-strategic engagement still continues, and China’s plans are beholden to the goodwill that the Moscow can help the region maintain towards Beijing. Being a civilizationally similar state to the Balkans than China is, the local people trust it and its judgements, thereby having no misgivings about interacting with China since it’s currently Russia’s number one strategic partner. Hand in hand, Russia and China are working to liberate the Balkans from unipolar influence, but it’s just that the current dynamics have shifted to where China is playing the leading infrastructural role while Russia moves into the less-publicized but still important one of providing support for this ambitious and globally impactful endeavor.

Q: The Syrian president Bashar al Assad has described his Russian college Vladimir Putin as the sole defender of the Christian civilization on which it can rely. The New World Order will continue in its systematic attempts to weaken, demoralize and destroy Christian countries. In what direction can we expect these attacks to occur in the upcoming year?

Absolutely, there’s definitely a concerted campaign at play to attack Christianity, but not only that, to attack all global religions in general, including conventional Islam. Allow me to explain. Like we spoke about earlier, Cultural Marxism is a big thing in the West, especially in the EU and the Democratic Party in the US. It’s one of the elite’s ideologies, not the only one, but one of the main concepts that they use to advance their agendas. There are definitely those that truly believe in it such as Angela Merkel and Barack Obama (in different ways for each), but then there are those who cynically understand its value in the strategic sense, represented by the Deep State triad of the Defense-Intelligence-Diplomatic permanent bureaucracies in Washington.

Cultural Marxism has a two-track policy whereby it ‘succeeds’ even if it ‘fails’. If it’s able to accomplish its desired objectives, then it removes socio-cultural attributes that once were the source of uniqueness and pride and replaces them with an indiscernible yet impressionable mass of beings that are very easy to control. To tie this in with the War on Religion that’s playing out all across the world right now (and which I’ll describe in more detail momentarily), getting rid of countries’ established and traditional religious identities is part and parcel of this strategy. On the other hand, even the attempt to impose Cultural Marxism can reap strategic successes for the US simply by virtue of its existence, since it immediately divides the population, especially those not initially preconditioned to its principles like populations in Eastern Europe and the Balkans or those that aren’t prepared for its full-scale implementation like what is being experienced in Western, Central, and Northern Europe vis-à-vis the manufactured “refugee” crisis. As the geopolitical inheritor of the British Empire, the US is a master at divide-and-rule strategies, and strategically promoting a Cultural Marxist agenda in certain targeted states can bring about the intended results of fracturing a society and turning it against itself for facilitated external manipulation.

Now about the War on Religion, one of its subsects, the War on Christianity, is being fought against believers in Europe on behalf of the Cultural Marxist ruling clique and in the Mideast through ISIL and other Wahhabi terrorists, but something similar is happening against conventional Islam (which the absolute vast majority of Muslims practice). Instead of a war from “without”, that is, one community being victimized by a separate one, the War on Islam is largely fought using internal means. The Wahhabi ideological virus was cultivated and promoted by the US and its Saudi ally in order to appeal to the over one billion Muslims in the world to join the worldwide anti-Soviet coalition that Reagan was creating through his 1980s “rollback” policy (ideologically inherited from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter). Afterwards the US kept using misinterpreted Islam as a recruiting instrument in seeking to cull de-facto mercenaries from this massive population pool, guiding them against strategic targets afterwards and continuing to do so up to the present day.

The conventional Muslim community is well aware of the danger that this weaponized version of their religion poses both to them and to other people, but it’s very difficult to root out once it’s been embedded in certain areas like parts of the Mideast, North Africa, and even select immigrant communities abroad in Western countries. There’s also the Muslim Brotherhood, which while not being Wahhabi, is “Islamist”. This latter adjective is commonly misused by people who aren’t aware of what it fully connotes, but to educate the reader in case they’re unaware, “Islamists” are those that want to violently impose their religion onto others, be they conventional or secular Muslims or any sort of non-Muslim such as Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists. Aside from certain divergences and disagreements over religious interpretation which are too esoteric for most secular individuals and non-Muslims to understand, Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood basically work towards the same goal as it relates to their victims (both Muslim and non-Muslim), and this has the effect of dividing the Muslim community and making it pliant to externally directed manipulation like the kind that the US is currently practicing.

That being said, the War on Religion will intensify on all fronts, be it the War on Christianity, the War on Islam, or the ‘fabled’ “Clash of Civilizations” between them and others that US strategists so desperately want to set into full motion. The Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood Islamists that have infiltrated into Europe under the cover of being “refugees” will continue their sexual terrorism and engage in more stereotypical terrorist acts such as suicide bombings, indiscriminate machine-gunning, and beheadings. They will also keep committing these acts of violence and intimidation against Mideast- and African-based Christians as well, and we could even expect a jump in attacks to take place in Buddhist and Hindu areas of Asia soon, too. These same individuals will simultaneously eat away at conventional Islam and continue the “Muslim Civil War” that the US created between the misguided radicals and the conventional and secular followers of the faith like the majority of the people in Syria. The Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood Islamists want to discredit conventional Islam, radicalize it, or destroy it, and that’s part of the reason why they’re fighting in Syria against the most historically tolerant civilizational manifestation of Islam. Furthermore, there’s also the chance that the Sunni-Shia split that the US worked so hard to resurrect after over a millennium of dormancy might soon become a tangible factor in geopolitical affairs, which could then see sectarian killings against the Shia skyrocket anywhere that they reside (such as Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.).

***

All told, the future doesn’t look too bright when discussing the War on Religion or Balkan geopolitics, but each and every individual can do their own part by understanding the true nature of what’s going on and educating their family, friends, and associates. American power is predicated on manipulating information and depriving critical elements of it from the masses, but if we can band together in sharing the truth, then we can create more effective resistance networks and avoid being led astray into the US’ predetermined traps. 

If you found my interview informative and intriguing, even if you don’t entirely agree with all of its contents, I warmly welcome you to share this with the people that you know in order to expose them to an unconventional and non-mainstream understanding of the most pressing problems facing the world today.

There could hardly have been a more appropriate start for the Chinese Year of the Monkey, geopolitically, than the prime monkey business enacted in Munich between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The Syrian charade now proceeds under a vague “cessation of hostilities” – which is not a ceasefire – to be implemented within a week. Further on down the road, as this is the real world, “hostilities” will inevitably resume. 

As Lavrov stressed multiple times, “we made proposals on implementing a ceasefire, quite specific ones.” And yet Washington and the Saudi-Turkish combo relented. A frightened, cornered House of Saud – with its remote-controlled “moderate rebel” gaggle being routed on the ground – even started spinning the ludicrous notion of sending ground troops, a.k.a. a bunch of mercenaries, to “help the US effort” against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/IS).

The monkey business reached such a level of un-sustainability that Russian premier Dmitry Medvedev felt compelled to tell an interviewer from Germany’s Handelsblatt, “The Americans and our [Arab] partners must think hard about this: Do they want a permanent war?”

Sultan Erdogan and the House of Saud certainly do – because their Syrian regime change dreams are in tatters. But the lame duck Obama administration’s case is way more complicated.True to its trademark, clueless foreign policy mode, there’s not much left for Team Obama except spinning.

The proverbial unnamed “US officials” spin on overdrive on Western corporate media that this postponed “cessation of hostilities” is a Russian trap – as Washington wanted an immediate ceasefire (no wonder; CIA remote-controlled “moderate rebels” are also being routed.)  European and Arab vassals spin that Damascus and Moscow are “torpedoeing the peace efforts.”

And yet Kerry caved in – to realism, actually. Lavrov must have made it very clear the two non-negotiables for Russia; win the Battle of Aleppo, still in progress, and seal the Syria/Turkey border against any manifestation of the Jihadi Highway, “moderate” or otherwise.

Do the Munich Spin

There’s a nifty historical echo about the war in Syria being negotiated in parallel to the Munich Security Conference – traditionally dedicated to global security. But the most pressing question is whether this new Munich Pact will actually hold.

What’s certain is that Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/IS) and al-Nusra Front, a.k.a al-Qaeda in Syria, will keep being targeted by both Russians and Americans even after the “cessation of hostilities”.

The “4+1” coalition – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – will also keep targeting every outfit remotely connected with Jabhat al-Nusra (and they are legion).

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will for its part intensify its attacks against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/IS). Call it the “all roads lead to Raqqa” syndrome. As soon as the Syria/Turkey border is sealed – with crucial input by the YPG Kurds – the march to Raqqa will be inevitable.

This is the ground scenario for the next few days. So no wonder the Saudi-Turkish combo is absolutely desperate; if they as much as try to support their “moderate rebels” with their aerial assets, they will be reduced to ashes by the Russian Air Force.Enter extra Exceptionalistan spin, according to which NATO is “exploring the possibility” of joining the US-led from behind coalition against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/IS).

This is nonsense; the Pentagon is already implicated. Major powers at NATO such as France and Germany want to extricate themselves from a Syrian crisis, not to get into a ground war. The whole charade amounts to Turkey’s Sultan Erdogan desperately trying, over and over again, to get NATO into the fray, even if it that takes a lethal provocation of Russia; after all his dream – now in tatters – of creating a “safe zone” on the Turkey/Syria border refuses to die.

That Hostile Sultan

Behind the whole “cessation of hostilities” charade, there’s a stark fact; the lame duck Obama administration does not seem to want to escalate those proverbial “tensions” with Moscow to an irreversibly critical level (Pentagon/NATO Cold War 2.0 obsession is another story.) The skies above Syria won’t offer a prelude for a US-Russia total war.But that doesn’t mean the Pentagon will desist from trying.

The Pentagon’s Ash “Empire of Whining” Carter and Britain’s Michael Fallon will be meeting with GCC and Turkey brass in Brussels. And guess who’s the head of the Saudi delegation: Warrior Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the actual House of Saud supremo as it stands (considering King Salman drifts on and off), as well as defense minister and responsible for the Saudi debacle in Yemen.

The Warrior Prince is absolutely livid that his remote-controlled “rebels” are being shellacked on the ground by the SAA and the Russian Air Force. Yet Yemen will be nothing compared to the drubbing his “Special Forces”, a.k.a. mercenaries will suffer under experienced SAA, Iranian and Hezbollah fighters.

The plot thickens. Both sides will deny it, but there are back-room channels being used by the House of Saud and Moscow to clearly demarcate areas to be run by the SAA and some acceptable “rebels” under the framework of fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. This proves Saudis and Russians can join their efforts as long as it’s against hardcore jihadism.

With deranged Sultan Erdogan, on the other hand, any possibility of a deal is beyond remote. Especially after the PYD northeastern Syrian Kurds — which Ankara regards as “terrorists” — opened a representative office in Moscow this past Wednesday, at the invitation of President Putin.

So keep an eye on this “cessation of hostilities”. Because the real hostilities may be just about to begin.

The following text are excerpts from Dr. Rasmus’ recent book, ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’

GLOBAL STOCK MARKETS

In the past year the stock markets in China erupted, contracting by nearly 50% in just three months, after having risen in the preceding year by 130%–truly a ‘bubble event’. That collapse, commencing in June 2015, continues despite efforts to stabilize it. Chinese bankers then injected directly $400 billion to stem the decline. Including other government and private sources, estimates are that no less than $1.3 trillion was committed to prop up stock values. So far it has produced little success, with more than $4 trillion in equity values having been wiped out in less than four months.

Another $500 billion in foreign currency reserves were committed by China to prop up the currency, the Yuan, which has declined in tandem with its stock markets. To finance its efforts to support its currency, China then began to sell its large pile of US Treasury bonds. Nevertheless, capital continues in 2015 to flee China in large volumes in the wake of the stock contraction, expectations of more currency disinflation, an initial devaluation by China of the Yuan, and a general expectation of more of the same.

Both China stocks and foreign exchange effects spilled over to other equity and currency markets throughout Asia, and as well to stock markets in the US, Europe and EMEs. In the case of the US and Europe markets, the contagion effect has not been that severe. Estimated around $150 billion, other counter-vailing forces also exist in US-Europe-Japan—i.e. potential more QE and suspension of US interest rate hikes—that have offset the initial China contagion effects. Not so, however, in the EMEs where financial assets in stocks and currencies followed the China trajectory more closely.

The stock and currency declines in China and the accelerating pace of capital flight from China will likely more than negate any future efforts by China to stimulate its real economy, already slowing noticeably. Money capital flows out of China perhaps faster than China’s central bank and state banks will try to pump it in. Should China’s stock markets decline another 10% to 20%, the financial markets in and out of China, will experience even greater contagion effects and become potentially severely unstable.

Meanwhile, European, Japan and US stock markets continue largely driven by the prospect of continuing QE, delays in US interest rate hikes, historic levels of corporate buybacks of stock, and record merger and acquisition activity—all of which provided a floor under artificially maintain stock levels. However, these forces may eventually become overwhelmed by China-EME market contractions. Contagion effects from the latter may eventually play a larger role in 2015 US-European-Japan stock financial asset deflation.

Except in the case of China, however, instability in global equity markets is not the potentially most severe source of financial instability in today’s global economy. That dubious distinction will likely reside with the bond markets. Globally stock markets represent about $40 trillion in value. Global bond markets, in contrast, equal at least two and a half times that with more than $100 trillion in assets. A bond market crash, even in one of its segments, could easily spread quickly to other bond segments and in turn other financial assets quickly as well, resulting in a crisis far worse than 2008-09.

GLOBAL BOND MARKETS

Several segments of global bond markets are prime candidates for precipitating a financial instability event of major dimensions.

One is the high yield or ‘junk’ bond market in the US and Europe. Another is the excessive corporate bond debt escalation Emerging Markets, especially that increasing growing sub-segment of EME bonds issued in dollars. Massive issuance of corporate bond debt in China and what are called ‘CoCo’ bonds in Europe should be added to the list. Sovereign bonds is another area of bond instability, especially in Latin America, Africa, and in the Eurozone southern periphery (especially Greece, Italy, Portugal-Spain) and even in that region of the Eurozone referred to as ‘Emerging East Europe’, including Ukraine. Longer term, theUS Treasury bonds market might be added to the bond instability list of prime candidates for instability, given the emerging issues of growing Treasury bond volatility and concern over liquidity should T-bond transactions accelerate in a crisis.

Hi Yield junk bonds in the US, and to a lesser extent Europe where they are growing especially fast, are perhaps the most unstable—along with EME and China corporate bonds. The junk bond segment represents bonds issued at high interest rates by the more financially strapped companies who cannot raise money through investment grade bonds or obtain bank loans. The bonds are typically short term borrowing earmarked for long term investing, a dangerous combination should bond prices begin to fall rapidly in a crisis.

Within the junk sector in the US, a large proportion of the bonds have been issued to fund expansion of the shale-gas fracking industry which is now in severe contraction. Junk defaults have doubled in the US compared with the past year, and the default rate is forecast to double in 2015, according to bank research projections. As companies default and go bankrupt in oil and energy, the instability will result in price instability transmitted to other US junk bond segments. And as the US junk bond market contracts in general, it can easily spill over to Europe and to EME markets that have a similar ‘high cost, short term’ bond composition. While Europe has previously not been a big market for issuing high yield corporate bonds in the past, the market has there has accelerated especially fast since 2008 in terms of growth, from a mere $20 billion that year to $600 billion in the past year, as the traditional bank lending has declined and weak companies desperate for financing have turned to junk bond issues.

The escalation of corporate bond debt in EMEs has been even more unprecedented. In the case of Latin American EMEs in particular, a large (and growing) proportion of that debt is also issued in US dollars. (Unlike for China, where the majority of corporate bond debt is in its local currency). The special problem this presents is, since the debt is in dollars, that debt must be repaid in dollars to investors. But if EME economies are in recession or slowing rapidly and global trade is stagnating—both of which are now the case—it means EMEs can’t earn from increasing export sales to the US or countries requiring payment in dollars, the necessary income with which to make the dollar denominated payments on their bonds as they come due.

Government bond debt in the EMEs is yet another potential severe point of instability. This is true in particular of those EMEs that have been heavily dependent on ‘servicing’ or paying their sovereign debt from income earned from oil and other commodity sales. As prices for both have deflated dangerously and as demand for their oil and commodities have collapsed simultaneously, many of the EMEs are now approaching default conditions. Latin American EMEs—Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador—and African EMEs like Nigeria and others in Asia have will soon experience growing instability in their sovereign bond markets.

As for European sovereign bonds, especially in the Euro periphery, their level of debt has not been significantly reduced since 2009, while in Greece, Italy, and elsewhere Eurozone government bond debt continues still to rise. Ukraine government bonds represent a special ‘black hole’ for Europe, with thus far no end in sight of financial support necessary to keep Ukraine’s bond markets, government and private, from further collapse near term.
In the case of US Treasury bonds, it may seem counter-intuitive that this traditional safest haven for bond investing is a candidate for instability, even longer term. But it is. It is not just that the US Treasury market has exploded from $4.5 to nearly $13 trillion in assets since the 2008 crisis. The problem is that structural changes in the US financial system in recent years has created increasingly volatile liquid markets for US government bonds, often marketed by high risk taking shadow bankers. A potential crisis point is reflected in the increasing use of these bonds by corporations to borrow short term in the US repurchase agreements, or Repos, in the market to fund longer term investments.

With Repos, a company puts up its government bonds as collateral to borrow cash short term from investors, often shadow bankers. Should short term investments collapse in price, liquidity for selling the bonds could prove significant insufficient, thereby driving down the price of Treasuries to excess levels and causing bond rates to rise. The Repo market (see below) is thus a serious weak point in the US financial system and US bonds. And US Treasury markets are thus subject to potential instability should the Repo market crack—as it did in 2008 in the case of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers investment banks, which had borrowed heavily and became dependent on repo financing. They went under when the Repo market shut down for them. The vast increase in the Treasury markets of nearly $9 trillion, much at low interest rates, will pose a related problem as the US government needs to refinance them in coming years, almost certainly at much higher rates of interest. Short period, massive escalations of multi-trillion dollars in asset values almost never end well—as China’s stock market crash shows or as the subprime housing bond market before 2007 or the tech dot.com bust of 2001 all have illustrated.

As will be noted in more detail below, corporate bond debt has exploded as well in China to unsustainable levels—just as China’s stock markets had. While not yet dollar denominated to a great extent, the rise in volumes of China corporate bond debt since 2008 are so huge that the money capital that will be needed to refinance it all in the near time raises serious questions whether China private corporate debt can ever be successfully refinanced. In 2018 alone, 5 trillion Yuan (about $800 billion) will need to be refinanced, or rolled over, according to China government banking reports; hundreds of billions of dollars more as well before and after 2018.

Given the especially large volumes involved and questionable repayment problems on the horizon—EME corporate bonds, China corporate debt, bonds associated with repo markets, government bonds in commodity-dependent EMEs, Euro periphery government bonds all reflect serious and growing ‘cracks’ in global bond markets that are expanding.

EMERGING MARKETS CORPORATE DEBT

EME corporate debt represent a problem not only of excessive issuance of corporate bond debt, both in domestic currencies as well as in dollars, but non-bond debt—i.e. corporate loans—as well. In Latin America the latter, dollar composition, is especially a problem. In some countries, like Mexico, the majority of the debt is issued in dollars. Even after subtracting China from the escalation of corporate debt from $5.5 to $18 trillion in EMEs since 2007, EME debt issued in dollars has risen by almost $2 trillion in the non-China EME sector. In China, corporate debt in general has risen from $2 trillion to about $12 trillion. So non-China EME corporate debt has nearly doubled, from $3.5 to $6 trillion while China’s has risen six-fold. The magnitudes of such corporate debt escalation cannot be end poorly.

The same risks apply with regard to making payments on this debt for EMEs, whether involving bond debt or loan debt. Loan debt is of even greater volume and thus a problem and potential source of financial instability, as repayments become more difficult as EME economies falter and slip into recessions.

CHINA FINANCIAL MARKETS

Compared to other EME financial markets, China’s financial markets are even more potentially unstable, and because of the sheer size of China’s economy and markets are even more capable of precipitating a generalized global financial crisis. China’s equity and corporate bond markets have been noted above, but there are additionally three big financial markets that are particularly unstable in China today—Local Government Financial Vehicles (LGFVs), Wealth Management Products (WMPs), and debt associated with what are called ‘Entrusted Loans’. In all three markets, China shadow banks are deeply involved in providing the credit and therefore excessively leveraged debt that makes these three especially unstable.

LGFVs represent the way in which local governments in China have financed infrastructure and commercial and residential construction spending beyond the financing provided by China government operated banks. Much of the LGFV financing has been arranged through shadow banks. Local governments have then sold real estate it obtains through forced sales from private owners to make payments on the debt. The problem is that land sales have been largely used up but the debt remains. In the process of debt escalation, real estate prices became a bubble. Now they are deflating, raising the real debt previously incurred while reducing the income source (real estate land acquisitions) for making debt payments. The LGFV debt was roughly 20% of China GDP in 2007, or $550 billion; it rose to 40% and $3.8 trillion by 2014.

It is estimated that 30% of more than $3 trillion in all ‘nonperforming’ debt in China today from all sources is non-performing LGFV debt. That means debt payments are not being made and more than $1 trillion in LGFV debt is in technical default. The government solution has been to rollover the debt at lower interest rates. Whether it can continue to do so, as more than $7 trillion in such debt must be refinanced during 2016-2018, remains to be seen. The potential contagion effects of LGFV defaults starting in 2016 may prove significant, both within China and throughout the rest of the global economy.

A second major financial asset of great potential instability is called the Wealth Asset Products or WMPs. These are also provided in significant degree through shadow banks. They represent bundled asset products sold to wealthy investors—comprised of roughly one third of stocks, one third local government debt, and one third industrial loans of small and medium businesses and state enterprises that are financially in need of private funding. The debt is opaque and held ‘off balance sheet’, not on the books of banks or other institutions. Like LGFVs, the escalation in such financial assets has been from just several hundred billion in 2007 to $2.9 trillion in 2014. Tied to stocks and local real estate, as these markets have deflated in 2015, the WMPs have no doubt lost massive valuation as well, making them highly unstable.

A third severe problem area in China financial markets involved ‘Entrusted Loans’, or ELs. These are associated with the major shadow bank sector in China called ‘Trusts’, as well as the China banking system. Entrusted loans provide a kind of ‘junk loans’ to industrial companies in particular, especially government enterprises in coal, steel, and other commodities production, that have been in severe distress as China growth has slowed and global demand for China steel, etc., has declined sharply. These loans are highly leveraged and thus subject to great volatility should financial asset deflation spread between markets in China, as stock markets implode, real estate values continue to decline, and LGFV and WMPs values fall further. Like LGFVs and WMPs, Entrusted Loans have surged from $272 billion in 2007 to nearly $3 trillion.

The three combined financial asset markets—LGFVs, WMPs, and ELs—combined represent more than $10 trillion private sector debt that is potentially highly unstable. When considered in relation to China equity and general corporate debt instability, the potential for a general financial crisis in China is not insignificant. Granted, China’s economy has great reserves in terms of foreign currency and assets available, and its government is capable of rapid response to major crises. However, the combined effects of all the above may prove overwhelming in the short term, and government responses may not be able to offset the panic by investors in the short term that could lead to a major financial contraction, followed quickly by a subsequent real economic contraction by an economy already slowing in those terms.

US FINANCIAL MARKETS

US financial markets today are not the primary locus of instability. The massive injections by the federal reserve central bank has offset the financial asset losses of most large banks and shadow banks, as well as big private investors, that occurred in 2008-09—in the process taking the losses onto its own Fed balance sheet. The private debt was not eliminated; it was only moved. Notwithstanding that, there are several financial markets in the US that are candidates for financial instability.

The junk bond market was previously noted, as was the Repo market and its strategic relationship to US Treasuries and the issue of bond liquidity. Mutual funds’ total assets have accelerated tremendously since the crisis as well, reflecting the extraordinary growth of financial wealth in the wake of the Fed liquidity injections and subsequent exploding values in US stocks and bonds. Mutual funds are also connected to the Repo situation, however. And should the Repo market experience significant liquidity problems, mutual funds will be exposed as well as bonds. The US government and Fed therefore are desperately trying to reform and shield the Repo and Mutual Funds markets from future instability, although have succeeded thus far poorly in doing so.

Other growing unstable markets include those for Leveraged Loans and Exchange Traded Funds, or ETFs. The former has surged again as banks and shadow banks have been providing highly leveraged debt to companies and investors involved in historic high merger and acquisition (M&A) activity (up 179%)—which, along with corporate stock buybacks (up 287%), has been driving much of US speculative stock gains in the past year. One shadow bank alone, Blackrock, controls more than a third, over $1 trillion, of the assets in this market. Since 2013 global M&A investing has risen to $4.6 trillion in 2015, compared to $2.2 trillion in 2009, according to the global research firm, Dealogic. These loans represent short term borrowing to finance long term investing, a classic condition for financial instability. ETFs are a new financial innovation that allow investors to bundle stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other assets and ‘trade’ them instantaneously as if they were stocks. Because they ‘link’ market securities for stocks, bonds, etc. into one financial asset, they represent a kind of securitized asset product. And because their price can change by the minute and second, ETF asset values are highly volatile and can collapse precipitously as any of the bundled asset market securities in them collapses, as they did by 30%, for example, on August 24, 2015 in the case of Blackrock.

US defined benefit pension funds and municipal state and local bonds are also potentially unstable. Neither have fully recovered from the last crisis. Pension funds depend upon general interest rates remaining sufficiently high to ensure returns on investment to pay for retirement benefits. But a decade of central bank zero interest rates has played havoc with pension fund returns, forcing them to search desperately for more ‘yield’ (returns) by undertaking risky asset investments. Public sector pension funds are further at risk due to the still largely unrecovered financial losses experienced by many states, and especially cities, school districts, and other local government entities since the 2008 crash. Some states and many cities remain in the red financially still today from financial investment losses associated with the 2008-2009 crash. The picture remains highly uneven throughout the US for US defined benefit pension funds. Some states and cities recovering, but many are still not. Should another financial crisis erupt, municipal bond rates will no doubt rise even further, resulting in a state and local government fiscal crisis far worse than in 2008-09.
Another area of consumer finance and debt in the US is the student loan market. In recent years it has escalated from several hundred billion to more than $1.3 trillion. While not a source of major financial instability, student debt functions already as a major drag on the real economy and consumption in particular. In a strange arrangement, the federal government profits significantly from this asset, much but not all of which it legislatively has redirected away from the private banks.

EUROPEAN FINANCIAL MARKETS

Government sovereign loans and debt remains a major problem in the Eurozone in particular. The debt is unevenly distributed, making it politically explosive, moreover, where it is focused in particular in the Euro periphery. Eurozone monetary and fiscal policies continue to exacerbate the debt, causing government bond rates to remain excessively high in the affected economies and, conversely, driving bond rates in Germany and elsewhere into negative territory and thus further yet unknown consequences for instability.

One solution proposed has been the issuance of a new security called a Convertible Bond, or CoCo bond. This new bond is designed to convert from a bond to equity in the event of a financial crisis. Because it may convert, and result in almost a near total loss as is potentially the case of equities compared to bonds, the CoCo bond pays a higher interest rate to investors. It is riskier in other words. It is a kind of government analog to junk bonds. In the desperate search for yield by many investors, they have piled into the security. However, should a severe instability event erupt in Europe, CoCos could quickly lose much of their value.

The general government debt problem, which now after 8 years in Europe has not abated but actually continued, combined with Europe’s stagnant economic real growth, has resulted in a high level of non-performing debt remaining on Euro bank balance sheets. Non-performing loan and bond debt in the Eurozone is estimated by some as high as $1 trillion. As in China’s case, and increasingly for EMEs in general, companies with a high level of current non-performing corporate debt typically become companies that default in a subsequent crisis.

OTHER GLOBAL FINANCIAL MARKETS

Two remaining financial markets of general global relevance are foreign exchange currency trading (FX) and derivatives speculation.

As the data table above illustrates, FX has exploded in terms of its size since 2009, which reveals the contribution of the massive liquidity injections by central banks, a good part of which has found its way to global currency trades and speculation. The daily trading volumes have almost doubled, to $5.3 trillion in purchases of currencies daily. Much of that is done by central banks, banks, and global corporations, but a significant segment of 10% of the trading is now ‘retail’; that is, done by speculators large and small, hedge funds and even small investors who, up to recently, had been financing this trade by use of credit cards. As governments continue to inject liquidity via QE they in effect create excess liquidity that fuels currency wars and volatility. And as countries attempt to devalue their currencies to gain a temporary advantage for exports, the volatility grows further. It all draws in more shadow bankers and speculators who feed off of the volatility, making currency markets more subject to financial speculation and causing havoc to economies and economic policies.

Not least, another problem globally is the role played by derivatives—interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, and other innovative financial products that continue to proliferate and grow and, in the process, add to potential contagion effects and further asset price volatility. Sometimes reference is made to what is called the notational value of derivatives, now in excess of $700 trillion. The more important figure, however, is not the notational but the potential loss values measured in what is called the ‘gross value’ of derivatives. While not $700 trillion, gross value and potential loss represents a massive $21 trillion, up from $15 trillion in 2008. In other words, derivatives and their potentially extreme financial destabilizing effects—which were clearly revealed in the 2008-09 crisis, have not been reduced. In fact, they have grown continually. And new forms of financial speculation involving derivatives have been created as well. An example of such is the ‘swaptions’ market for credit default swaps, or CDSs. It represents betting on the movements of CDS. The latter are a kind of a ‘bet’ that financial assets will deflate significantly, in which case a ‘payoff’ for the CDS is made. But swaptions take it one step further: betting on the broad index of CDSs as a financial security itself.

Derivatives trading is growing rapidly, having reached record levels in 2014. Previously largely concentrated in the USA and UK, it has begun to grow as well in Southern Asia—in particular in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia. Japan has begun significant volumes of derivatives trading. Europe is attempting to promote it. And China will open a trading section in Shanghai in 2015.

Syrian army units and paramilitary forces are reportedly moving into Raqqa province, seizing strategically important areas along the Salamiyah-Raqqa road which leads directly into the Islamic State stronghold.

On Sunday, Syrian government forces and Palestinian armed militia captured the strategically important Tal Masbah hilltop, the last entrenched Islamic State (IS, previously ISIS/ISIL) position.

The fortified position guarded approaches to the Salamiyah-Raqqa highway, leading to the terror group’s stronghold in the city of Raqqa, Al-Masdar news outlet reported, citing a military source.

Later that day, the Syrian government army launched a massive assault on the village of Zakiyah and seized an important crossroads near the village, cutting IS’s major supply route from Raqqa to nearby Hama province.

The Syrian government army’s 555th Brigade, 4th Mechanized Division, “Desert Hawks” brigade and Golani regiment, as well as the pro-government Palestinian Liwaa Al-Quds militia (Jerusalem brigade) took part in both ground offensives.

A source in the 555th brigade told Al-Masdar that IS militants entrenched at Tal Masbah hilltop were forced to flee northeast towards the desert on the Raqqa-Hama border, where an intense battle between the terror group and government forces is taking place.

© Google Maps

The Syrian government army is also set to retake the key Tabaqah military airbase in southwest Raqqa province, which was captured by IS in August 2014.

“This is an indication of the direction of coming operations toward Raqqa,” a military source briefed on the battle told Reuters. “In general, the Raqqa front is open … starting in the direction of the Tabqa area.”

The advance into IS-held Raqqa province would allow Damascus to regain control over a region where Syrian government forces have had no presence since 2014. It would also complicate any move by Saudi Arabia to deploy forces to the area.

Previous media reports indicate that Saudi Arabia is considering a full-scale ground invasion into war-torn Syria, where they are backing anti-government rebels battling Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Riyadh has also been threatening that Assad will be toppled if he does not leave during a period of political transition. “Bashar al-Assad will leave – have no doubt about it. He will either leave by a political process or he will be removed by force,” Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told CNN.

The possible Saudi intervention as well as recent Turkish artillery shelling of Kurdish and Syrian army positions came amid a successful anti-IS offensive by government forces in Aleppo, another important region.

Click to listen to  the Sputnik interview of Michel Chossudovsky with Radio Sputnik regarding US-NATO preparations for an invasion of Syria by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

https://soundcloud.com/radiosputnik/turkey-wants-to-annex-part-of-syrian-territory-michel-chossudovsky

Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United States, is also a staunch opponent of President Assad and has been accused of condoning and even supporting the Islamic State. Radio Sputnik discussed the issue with Professor Michel Chossudovsky, geopolitical analyst and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Middle Eastern countries have a more complex and extensive pipeline system than countries in North Africa.

Firstly, this region contains greater hydrocarbons.

Secondly, many countries there are able to choose between several routes for oil and gas: the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea or pipelines to neighboring countries. This article is devoted to the most important existing gas and oil pipelines of the exporting countries, as well as planned projects. Also, we’ll discuss the major transit countries.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

Producing countries

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has a pipeline system with a length of more than 17 thousand km. At the same time geographically this system covers a relatively small part of the country. In fact, the main unextended pipeline connects the field to the east of the country to the export port in the same area.

Several pipelines Saudi oil output in the western export route – to the ports on the Red Sea, as well as to the north of Iraq. Also, pipelines are stretched to major oil refineries of the country: Ras Tannura, Rabigh, Yanbu, Riyadh and Jeddah. The total capacity of these plants is about 1.6 million bbl. / Day.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

It’s important to pay more attention to “East-West” route, Transaraviyskom and Iraqi pipelines.

The pipeline “East-West» (East-West pipelines) is an important infrastructure project for the transportation of Saudi raw materials from the east of the country to the west. It provides not only access to resources to the other export route – through the Red Sea to Europe, but also transports the raw material to the processing plants in the west of the country, where there are many large settlements and industrial centers. But oil is still the main resource which is needed to generate electricity in Saudi Arabia. The pipeline East-West is about 1170 km. Its capacity is 5 million Bbl. / Day. The operator of the pipeline is the main company of the country – Saudi Aramco. Threads of the pipeline was put into operation in 1984.

In parallel with the oil one the gas pipeline is laid, with a capacity of 290 th. barrels of oil equivalent a day. This is the longest pipeline in the kingdom. It is needed to transport the gas to the petrochemical plants in the area of Yanbu.

Two other pipelines – Trans-Arabian and Iraq – are not functioning for a long time. Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) which joined together allocated in the east KSA Al-Qaisumah and the port of Sidon in Lebanon (by transit through Jordan and the Golan Heights, which were the part of Syria that time). Its capacity is 500 th. barrels. / day, length is about 1,200 kilometers, pipe diameter is 760 mm. The pipeline became operational in 1950, but after 1967, when during the Six Day War, control of the Golan Heights turned to Israel , the object was constantly being attacked. As a result, by 1976 the land to the north of Jordan was incapacitated. Fully the pipeline ceased to function in 1990 after the outbreak of war in Kuwait (Jordan has not sided with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). Since then, periodically there have been reports of a possible restoration and reconstruction of the pipeline, mostly they come from Jordan, which is aimed to meet the growing demand for energy.

Iraqi oil pipeline through Saudi Arabia (Iraq Pipeline through Saudi Arabia – IPSA) also ceased to function due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The pipeline was designed to transport raw materials to the Iraqi Muazzin Saudi port on the Red Sea. The pipeline was put into operation in 1987, then – in 1990. The diameter of the pipes ranges from 1200 mm to 1400 mm.

Saudi Arabia has oil (two threads) in Bahrain, to which this country enters the Saudi oil. And in September of this year the country signed an agreement on the construction of the two pipelines. Its length will be 115 km. The value of contracts will reach $ 300 million.

Iraq

The specificity of Iraq is that oil reserves are located mainly in two areas – the north (Kurdistan Region and Kirkuk) and south (field near the ports of the Persian Gulf). The main export routes for Iraq are through the Persian Gulf and Turkish ports. Refineries are located in central Iraq (Baghdad) and near Kirkuk (Baiji refinery). So, the pipes unite Kirkuk, Baghdad and ports in the south, export pipelines are sent to Turkey and Syria.

The main national strategic of oil pipeline is a pipeline from the Kirkuk fields to the Persian Gulf. The pipeline passes through the capital of the country and can be operated in reverse direction, delivering raw materials from the southern fields near the Persian Gulf to Baghdad.

The most interesting situation has already happened with the main export pipeline between Iraq and Turkey. There are two pipelines, one is controlled by the central government Iraq; the second one is built by the government of Kurdistan Region. After the commissioning of its own pipeline in May 2014 Erbil began independent supply of energy to Turkey, by passing Baghdad. Since then, Kurdish autonomy has been constantly increasing oil exports in its pipeline . In September 2015 the volume of domestic exports reached 602 th. barrels. / day.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

In recent years there has constantly been a lot of problems with the export of resources to Turkey. And the main reason is blowing up pipes in the Turkish area. Only in August 2015, exports of Kurdish oil fell by 30% compared to July due to the fact that the pipeline was closed for 9 days. According to the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Kurdistan Region,in the period from July to September, the Kurdish autonomy underpaid about $ 500 million because of problems with the Turkish oil pipeline.

The pipeline is expected to be extended From Iraq to the port of Baniyas in Syria. Previously, it was used as an additional export route. However, after the beginning of the civil war, and then the onset of ISIL in Iraq, the pipeline is practically not functioning.

Iran

Particularly interesting is the situation in Iran. It’s not just that Iran will soon enter the world market of hydrocarbons after the lifting of sanctions. Due to the nature of economic geography of the country, the raw material for the domestic market of Iran is transported from south to north-west, where are concentrated the processing power and industry. To save money on logistics Iran prior to the tightening of the sanctions regime actively sought the swap transactions with oil and gas to neighboring countries. So, Iran was getting oil from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, and used it for the needs of the northern regions. Then he shipped its oil from the southern ports for the performance of its export obligations of its neighbors.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

Currently under construction is the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, which can be further extended to China. Construction of the pipeline is planned to be completed in the next 1-2 years. Earlier, there were plans to extend it to India, but due to political disagreements and concerns about the safety ,the project was shelved. At this stage, chinese companies are playing a key role in the construction of the pipeline. The pipe with diameter of 1000 mm will stretch about 900 km. It is planned to supply gas to Pakistan in the amount of 21 million cubic meters. m / day.

Other Gulf states have the necessary infrastructure to pump oil and gas to export LNG ports and terminals. As one of the interesting projects in this area, only previously mentioned new pipeline of oil from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain, can be described, as well as the pipeline project Iran-Oman. At the end of August. , the two countries signed an agreement on construction of a 400-kilometer gas pipeline through which Oman will buy from the Islamic Republic of gas in the volume of 28 million cubic meters. m / day for 15 years.

Yemen

The main difference of pipeline in Yemen is that its system is completely isolated from the other countries in the region. Totally there are three pipelines from the central part of the country to the southern and western ports of Al-Shihri, Bir Ali and Ras Issa respectively. There is also a pipeline that delivers raw materials to the Balhaf LNG terminal, which is located in the south-east of the country. At the moment, due to the complex military-political situation in the country, almost no lines are not operating.

Over the years there have been rumors about the construction of an oil pipeline between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. However, the plans have not been implemented yet.

Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean

Egypt is a minor raw material supplier to the world markets compared to its neighbors from the Gulf Stream (produces an average of 700 thousand. Bbl. / Day). Nevertheless, infrastructure for transportation of oil and gas is developed in the country. Pipelines connect hydrocarbon deposits with factories for processing and export multiple ports in the Mediterranean and Red seas. As for interstate pipelines, Egypt is linked to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel through a single export pipeline – Arab Pipeline. The relationships between Egypt and EU are not so developed in oil and gas sphere. Firstly, nearly impossible to construct pipelines to Greece or Turkey because of the deep-water of the Mediterranean Sea. Secondly, in recent years there was no need for such projects, as the Egypt’s ability to export has severely reduced. Egypt for a long time has been consuming more oil than it produces. And the gas consumption grows very quickly, although Egypt is still able to export the “blue fuel”, which he does in the form of LNG trade.

Arab pipeline runs from Al Arish – Taba – Aqaba – Amman – Damascus – Homs, to Israel the pipeline is stretched under water from Al-Arish. The Egyptian section of the pipe almost ceased to function after the fall of Mubarak’s government. With the start of the Arab spring it is constantly under attack. The most serious damage was caused by explosions of pipeline in July 2011, December 2013 and January 2014. Total number of explosions is estimated in dozens. Despite this, in March 2015, mass media reported that the “individuals” from Egypt signed with Israel gas supply contract. It will stretch from “Tamar” in Egypt and it’s worth will be about $ 1.2 billion. The gas was to be exported by Arab Gas Pipeline. Its capacity is 7 billion cubic meters. m / year.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

Arab pipeline

In general, the situation with the gas infrastructure in the Eastern Mediterranean is now extremely interesting. There is the prospect of connection pipes in Egypt, Israel and Cyprus. Moreover, Egypt in this case will act as importer of energy resources. Discovered relatively recently and not reclaimed gas reserves in Cyprus and Israel forced to talk seriously about the possibility of converting the two states in the gas exporting countries.

In the end of August this year a very large gas field – “Az-Zor” was opened in Egypt. Its reserves are estimated at 850 billion cubic meters. “Az-Zor” may make significant changes in the plans of the three countries.

Now the Egyptian, Israeli and Cypriot authorities say that negotiations on the construction of gas pipelines and gas exports to Egypt will not be suspended. However, since the spring of 2015 no real agreements or projects between the two countries have not been announced. Latest news related to February 2015 when Egypt and Cyprus signed a memorandum of understanding on the joint development of hydrocarbons in Cyprus and their import to Egypt. Now the parties are likely to be waiting for the results of assessments field “Az-Zor.”

For Israel and Cyprus the other possible direction of gas exports and, consequently, the construction of pipelines can be Turkey. But here comes another problem of the Eastern Mediterranean – political and territorial disputes between the two countries. It will be difficult for Israel to agree with its Arab neighbors, Cyprus – with Turkey. In addition, there are disagreements over the maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel, Turkey and Cyprus.

Transit countries

A truly unique position in the region, Turkey occupies. It lies on the way of oil and gas transit from major exporting countries. Transit routes from Russia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Cyprus are ready, under construction or just planned. Turkey can be a gateway to Europe for countries with approximately 70% of oil and gas reserves in the world. Turkey receives hydrocarbons from Russia (gas pipeline “Blue Stream”), Azerbaijan (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and a parallel South Caucasus gas pipeline Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum), Iraq (Iraq-Turkey, the Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan) Iran (Tabriz-Ankara pipeline).

But the interesting thing here – is planned project. Firstly, now there is the realization of the expansion project “Southern Corridor”, which includes the extension area of the South Caucasus gas pipeline and the construction of the Turkish section – TANAP (Trans-Anatolian Pipeline). The ceremony of laying the foundation of it took place in March 2015, and the first gas will go through it in 2018. The pipeline will pass to the east of Turkey (from the South Caucasus gas pipeline) to the west. And then it will link with the pipeline TAP (Trans Adriatic Pipeline), which will pass through Greece and Albania to Italy. The planned capacity of TANAP is 16 billion cubic meters. m / year, the TAP – 10-20 billion cubic meters. m / year. The main shareholder in the first project is the Azerbaijan national company SOCAR, in the second one – SOCAR and British BP with Norway’s Statoil.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

Secondly, of course, it’s important to say about the “Turkish Stream” project, which promotes Russia. Initially, after the rejection of the construction of the “South Stream”, russian representatives announced that the new Turkish project would include four gas pipeline. The first line will carry the “blue fuel” for Turkey’s domestic use, the other three – for export to Europe.

Estimated route “Turkish Stream” from the site of the company “Gazprom”

The first string of “Turkish Stream”, according to the representatives of “Gazprom”, will cost $ 4.86 billion. The capacity of each thread should reach 15.75 billion cubic meters. m / year.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

From the previously planned pipeline through Turkey is necessary to recall Nabucco. It was to stretch from Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to Turkey, then to European countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Germany). Its capacity should reach about 30 billion cubic meters. m / year. It had been developing till it was closed in 2013.

Syria had a relatively well-developed oil and gas infrastructure, in spite of her modest reserves of hydrocarbons. Gas and oil pipelines connects the three main fields of hydrocarbon regions of the country – al-Hasakah, Deir ez-Zor and Homs. In addition, through the Arab Gas Pipeline Syria got Egyptian gas, from there this gas went to Lebanon.

Moreover, Syria has received Iraqi oil, which also was sent to Lebanon, and part – to the port of Baniyas. In the past two years, the transit pipelines in the country were not functioning. It’s difficult to say about the current Syrian infrastructure.

This article was first published by Global Research on August 18, 2016

The term “iatrogenic” means doctor, drug or surgery-caused disease. It is a taboo subject in America today.

I don’t know how many of my readers listen to John Gilbert’s daily talk show on Duluth’s local KDAL radio station (610 AM). John is the journalist that writes the best sports-related columns that I have ever read. Those sports columns appears every week in the Duluth Reader, which is where my Duty to Warn column is published; so we are colleagues. John is a wonderful radio interviewer who occasionally invites me to appear on his “The John Gilbert Show” when medical issues arise. The show is on every weekday morning from 9 – 11 am. It is archived at

www.kdal610.com/podcasts/the-john-gilbert-show-podcast/).

This morning (8-16-16), just before I was about to begin writing this week’s column, John called and asked me to appear on the show to give my medical opinion about the dramatic recovery of dementia victim Kris Kristofferson, the legendary singer/song-writer who had been erroneously diagnosed with incurable late-stage Alzheimer’s dementia (of unknown origin).

John had seen Kristofferson perform onstage with Merle Haggard a year or two ago when he was obviously seriously demented (although still able to remember the lyrics of his own songs). And then, just recently, John again saw Kristofferson perform in a solo concert when his dementia symptoms had completely disappeared! Reader publisher and editor Bob Boone graciously provided the $70 dollar tickets for John and his wife Joan.

Apparently Kristofferson (right) had been mis-diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia about three years ago, which started more than one medical misadventure for he and his neurologists involving neurotoxic medication trials with drugs. Those drugs that Kristofferson was treated with had been approved by the FDA on the basis of a couple of short-term trials involving only a few hundred so-called “Alzheimer’s Dementia” patients. The results that were submitted to the FDA showed only minimal improvement (albeit “statistically significant”), but only in mild to moderate dementia. Thus treating severely demented patients with those drugs was not FDA-approved (“off-label”).

Kristofferson had thus been treated with what is actually now considered by the medical community to be ineffective, non-curative and the cause of many serious drug-induced adverse effects. In other words, Kristofferson a victim of serious dementia and a resident of Big Pharma-dominated America, was given the standard Alzheimer’s drug treatment: oral Namenda (Novartis) and Exelon (Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc). Another drug that is similar to Namenda is Aricept (Eisai Pharmaceuticals), which has been found to be equally ineffective.

All three of those drugs are highly profitable synthetic drugs that are non-specific anti-cholinesterase drugs that are now actually widely acknowledged to be useless for any kind of dementia – not to mention the fact that they are all very expensive and carry serious and sometimes debilitating adverse effects which can include somnolence, insomnia, fatigue, appetite suppression, dizziness, depression, confusion, emotional lability, fainting, and even diarrhea!

John Gilbert and I are both Kris Kristofferson fans. We both appreciate his song-writing genius (and performances). In my opinion, his lyrics and tunes rank right up there with Bob Dylan, although Kris was more understandable when performing. Some of my favorite Kristofferson songs that come to mind include Me and Bobby McGee, Loving Her Was Easier, Why Me Lord, Sunday Morning Coming Down, Once More With Feeling, Help Me Make it Through the Night, Jody and the Kid, etc.). At the most recent concert that the Gilberts attended, it was revealed that the singer’s so-called (and mis-diagnosed) Alzheimer’s Disease has been miraculously cured three weeks after he stopped three offending drugs and started antibiotic treatment because he had been found to have a positive blood test for Lyme Disease.

Thus, with a new diagnosis that explained a number of his symptoms, Kristofferson’s new physician stopped the two Alzheimer’s drugs and an (unnamed) antidepressant drug that had been prescribed for so-called fibromyalgia, and he was simultaneously started on a tetracycline antibiotic and an anti-protozoal drug (that was FDA-approved only for protozoal diarrheas, such as could occur from giardiasis).

Within three weeks of stopping the medications and starting the antibiotics, Kristofferson’s dementia had improved dramatically. Not surprisingly, all of the glory has been attributed to the new diagnosis and the antibiotic, rather than to the stoppage of the likely offending drugs, which are all known to commonly cause symptoms that could have caused his dementia or fibromyalgia or depression symptoms (see list above)!

According to Kristofferson’s wife (in an interview widely available online),

For the past three years, Kris was treated for Alzheimer’s by two different neurologists. He was on two drugs for it, Namenda and Exelon patches. But finally, a spinal tap and functional MRI ruled out Alzheimer’s, so he quit those meds and the antidepressant for fibromyalgia. They also tested him for Lyme Disease in the spinal fluid and it was negative but the doctor explained to me that Lyme does not live in fluid, it lives in tissue. It bores into tissue so you would really have to do a biopsy of the brain to find it.

He was taking all these medications for things he doesn’t have, and they all have side effects. After he gave up his Alzheimer’s and depression pills and went through three weeks of Lyme disease treatment, all of a sudden he was back.

As mentioned, all the news has been glorifying the new diagnosis of Lyme disease and the antibiotics. The news has also been inadvertently discrediting the doctrinal assertions of the many Alzheimer’s Disease patient advocacy groups (such as the Alzheimer’s Association and the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America [and even the Mayo Clinic’s website]) which state that there are no known causes of AD and consistently fail to mention the many drug-induced (iatrogenic) causes of dementia. The term “iatrogenic” means doctor, drug or surgery-caused disease. It is a taboo subject in America today.

Dementia and Iatrogenesis

At this point it is essential to point out that the epidemic of dementia and mental illness and autoimmune disorders in American adults coincides perfectly with the aggressive prescribing of psychiatric drugs, statin (cholesterol-lowering) drugs and the regular use of mercury (in the annual flu shots) and aluminum adjuvants in the vaccines given to adults, adolescents and children (and infants in many cases). Both mercury and aluminum are toxic to the brains and nerve tissues of all animals, including humans, and statin drugs like Lipitor have FDA-required black box warnings because they are known to cause memory loss, the first and essential symptom of dementia.

A major problem behind America’s over-diagnosing, over-prescribing and over-vaccinating is the fact that there are so many corporate-funded groups with serious economic and/or professional conflicts of interest that work hard to promote the awareness and de-stigmatization of any and every disease for which there is an FDA-approved drug. The corporate sponsors, who have very deep pockets, are everywhere where potential prescribers and potential patients are, and not just on prime time television and the internet.

Some Groups That Promote Over-Diagnosis, Over-Treatment and Over-Vaccination

That list of conflicted groups includes 1) pharmaceutical corporations that sell drugs and vaccines, 2) medical device manufacturers that want to sell their medical devices, 3) diagnostic testing corporations that manufacture and promote their products, 4) Big Vaccine corporations that promote mandatory or mandated vaccination schedules (including unproven-for-safety combination inoculations for infants), 5) patient advocacy groups that promote certain diseases, 6) government bureaucracies that are heavily subsidized by Big Pharma (CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS, etc) and 7) those Big Pharma-connected organizations (AMA, AAP, APA, AAFP, etc) that try to demonize and discredit safer and potentially curative non-drug approaches to ill health like psychotherapy, nutritional therapies, etc.

Actually curing patients or preventing illnesses naturally – rather than treating symptoms with drugs that typically cause adverse effects – is not necessarily good for the healthcare business. (There is a big difference between early diagnosis and primary prevention. The first is highly profitable and the second one isn’t.)

The dramatic Kristofferson story was well-received by the Lyme Association of America and the many similar Lyme patient advocacy groups. However, it has not been well-received by the Alzheimer’s Association because it revealed one of the AA’s blind spots: that there is such a thing as drug-induced dementia that could potentially be cured by stopping the offending drug(s).

 “Drug-Induced/Iatrogenic Dementia: A Perfect Crime”

But the whole Kristofferson story raises a number of issues.

For example, one must ask how prevalent is iatrogenic memory loss secondary to prescribed drugs? That is an issue that, if brought up among civilized people with no profit motives, would terrify the thousands of for-profit healthcare corporations and their sycophants.

I have written about psychiatric drug-induced dementia in the past, mainly referring to the ground-breaking book on the subject that is titled “Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime”, authored by practicing psychiatrist Grace E. Jackson.

(Much more is posted at: http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn.)

In her scholarly book (which, not surprisingly, has been black-listed by the Big Pharma-influenced medical community because it tells too many unwelcome truths about Big Psychiatry and Big Pharma), Dr Jackson has methodically evaluated the vast basic neuroscience journal literature (most of which has not been subsidized by Big Pharma [as opposed to virtually all mainstream medical journals]). In her studies, Dr Jackson found a massive amount of information proving that all five classes of psychiatric drugs are fully capable of causing brain impairment and brain damage in lab animals (and even human subjects) that mimic findings in dementia patients. And that includes the classical findings of neurofibrillary tangles and beta amyloid deposits. (FYI, the five classes of psychiatric drugs are psychostimulants, antidepressants, tranquilizers/sleeping pills, antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anti-seizure drugs.)

The Fine Line Between “Normal”, Demented and “Mentally Ill”

The truth is that people diagnosed as “mentally ill” for life are often simply those unfortunates who have found themselves in acute or chronic states of potentially reversible crises or temporary “overwhelm” due to any number of preventable, treatable and even curable situations. Examples include such things as being in bad company, or being a victim of poverty, abuse, violence, torture, homelessness, discrimination, underemployment, malnutrition, addictions/withdrawal, electroshock “therapy” and/or exposure to neurotoxic chemicals in their food, air, water or prescription bottles. Any of those examples can mimic a so-called “mental illness of unknown cause” or a reversible dementia like Kris Kristofferson had.

Those labeled as the “mentally ill” are not much different from those of us who call ourselves “normal”. But we “normals” have just been lucky enough to have not yet decompensated because of some yet-to-happen, desperation-inducing life situation. And thus we may not have yet been given a billable diagnosis with a billable code number, and so we have not yet been prescribed some unaffordable prescription drug that could put us on the road to permanent dependence, disability and institutionalization.

In other words, if we are lucky enough to remain unlabeled, we are also likely to remain off brain-altering and addictive substances; and therefore we may remain away from the clutches of “the system”, within which it is very difficult to “just say no to drugs.”

My clinical experience with over a thousand so-called “mentally ill” patients (most of whom were mis-labeled) has led me to agree with Jackson’s assertions. I fully agree with her warnings that the chronic use of psychiatric drugs is a major cause of memory loss, dementia, cognitive disorders, loss of IQ points, loss of creativity, loss of impulse control, loss of spirituality, loss of empathy, loss of energy, loss of strength, and a multitude of metabolic adverse effects (like psych drug-induced obesity, hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia).

There is no question in my mind that these drugs can sicken the body, brain and soul by causing adverse drug effects such as insomnia, somnolence, increased depression, mania, anxiety, delusions, psychoses, paranoia, etc. So before filling the prescription, I strongly urge pill-takers to read the product insert information under WARNINGS, PRECAUTIONS, ADVERSE EFFECTS, CONTRAINDICATIONS, TOXICOLOGY, OVERDOSAGE and the ever-present BLACK BOX WARNINGS ABOUT SUICIDALITY, HOMICIDALITY AND MEMORY LOSS.

Dr. Peter Breggin (www.breggin.org) has warned us in his writings about a new syndrome that he calls psychiatric drug-induced Chronic Brain Impairment (CBI). It is caused by the chronic usage, especially with large doses or with combinations of psychotropic drugs. CBI could also be regarded as a chemically traumatic brain injury (cTBI) and it can mimic Alzheimer’s Disease.

In medical school, we students half-joked that Thorazine and Haldol caused “chemical lobotomies” in its victims. Little did we know how close to the truth we were. Chemical lobotomy is a useful way to conceptualize the serious issue CBI or cTBI, because such brain-altered patients are often indistinguishable from those who have actually suffered a physically traumatic brain injury (TBI) or have been subjected to “ice-pick” lobotomies (which were popular in the 1940s and 50s before the drugs came on the market and rapidly replaced that dastardly industry).

America has a dementia and mental ill health epidemic on its hands that is so obvious but so grossly misunderstood, and because of that blindness, the epidemic is worsening, not because of the supposed progression of “mental illness”, but because of the continued chronic use of neurotoxic, non-curative drugs that are, in America, erroneously used as first-line “treatment.”

For more information on these extremely serious topics check out these useful websites that accept no pharmaceutical money: http://rxisk.org/, www.madinamerica.com, www.mindfreedom.org, www.breggin.com, www.icspponline.org; www.cchrint.org, www.drugawareness.org, www.psychrights.org, www.quitpaxil.org, www.endofshock.com, www.nvic.org/, and follow the links.

In conclusion, I attach a number of useful items that support some of the realities mentioned above.

• The CDC, much to the delight of Big Vaccine corporations, spent more than $4 billion in 2015 purchasing childhood vaccines from them.
• The CDC has paid out more than $3 billion to families because of the harm, including deaths and permanent disabilities, caused by certain childhood vaccines.
• Big Pharma’s profit-driven model plays a very significant role in the way public health policy is determined. The power of Big Pharma is not a secret, nor is it a conspiracy theory.
• It is estimated that errors from medical treatment kill up to 98,000 people in U.S. hospitals every year and characterized the problem as among the nation’s leading causes of death and injury.
• Iatrogenic infections in the US (“iatrogenic” — meaning “induced by a physician,” or, more loosely, “caused by medical care”) are directly responsible for 20,000 deaths among hospital patients in the U.S. each year, and they contribute to an additional 70,000 deaths, according to the CDC. The dollar cost of iatrogenic infections is $4.5 billion.
• A new poll from the American Medical Association nonprofit National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) finds that 42 percent of people say they’ve been affected by physician errors, either directly or through a friend or relative. The survey found that 40 percent of the people who had experienced a medical mistake pointed to misdiagnoses and, therefore, wrong treatments as the problem. Medication errors accounted for 28 percent of mistakes. AMA leaders say it’s time to bring the issue out into the open, rather than living in constant fear that any admission of error will launch a flood of malpractice lawsuits. Poorly designed health care systems may be largely to blame. Doctors and nurses often work double shifts, making them more prone to error.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his family practice career. He now writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at

http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/authors?query=Gary+Kohls+articles&by=&p=&page_id= or at

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

A short while ago Turkey and Qatar announced that they have an agreement in place to further deepen their military cooperation within the framework of the “struggle against common enemies“, which implies the construction of two new military bases: a Turkish one in Qatar and a Qatari base in Turkey.

As it was made clear by the Turkish Ambassador to Qatar, Ahmet Demirok, Ankara is planning to construct a multi-purpose military installation that will become home to some 3,000 soldiers. By taking this step Turkey expects to become a state that is directly influencing security in the Persian Gulf. In the future, this base will also provide Turkish armed forces with an outpost for operations in the Red Sea, North Africa, along with the access to the waters of the Pacific, which Turkey lost back in 1950.

Just as with the creation of the British military base in Bahrain, and the French military base in the UAE, this deal is but a step in the implementation of Washington’s plan of enhancing the role of its allies in ensuring regional security in the Persian Gulf, that its satellites are to take at their own expense. It is expected that in late February, the US Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Charles Johnson is going to visit Turkey to offer local authorities American technologies that should allow Ankara to enhance its own national security, including reconnaissance balloons, explosives spotting devices, and so on. It is believed that Secretary Jeh Charles Johnson is going to discuss the strengthening of the fight against ISIL along with “the mutual interests” the US and Turkey can protect with the Turkish base in Qatar.

Of course, experts that have been watching closely Turkey’s and Qatar’s policies in recent years, won’t be surprised by this chain of events. In an effort to regain the influence that the Ottoman Empire enjoyed in the Middle East, President RecepTayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party have been using every pretext to justify the future deployment of its troops in the Persian Gulf through the “sincere” desire to intensify “the fight against common threats“, while making Turkey’s military presence in the region official.

However, a military agreement between Qatar and Turkey is of vital strategic importance for both states, since by coincidence or not, they share regional interests. Turkey and Qatar have been supporting similar extremist and even terrorist groups used extensively in the fight against the Syrian government. Both states have also been deeply involved in the political struggle for influence in Egypt, by sponsoring the Muslim Brotherhood organization and former President Mohamed Morsi, along with promoting Wahhabi ideas not only in North Africa and the Middle East, but also in Central Asia.

It should be noted that Qatar and Turkey are the original creators of ISIL, and they have been investing heavily in the strengthening of this terrorist organization ever since. While Qatar provided a certain share of its financial wealth with ISIL, Turkey has spent significant time on the recruitment and training of ISIL militants for them to then wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. Turkey did its best to provide its terrorist creation with sophisticated smuggling networks that allowed ISIL to ship stolen oil and drugs across the globe. The Islamic State repaid their masters with a constant stream of Muslim refugees heading to Europe in a bid to save their lives. After all, Turkey is the first to benefit from the flow of migrants that are supposed to conquer a foothold in new lands, planting the seeds for future victories of a new Ottoman Empire.

Bilateral military cooperation between Turkey and Qatar received a significant boost back in December 2014 when the parties signed a military agreement that received a whole new meaning a year later. This secret agreement was expanded during the visits of Turkish intelligence chief Hakan Fidan to Doha last December, when Ankara managed to secure Doha’s promise to compensate a portion of its losses from the cessation of Russian tourism to Turkey, believed to have caused a whopping 3 billion dollars in economic damage, along with the promise that Qatar will be providing Ankara with gas supplies, should Russia decide to terminate its supplies. In addition, Qatar has agreed to pay all the costs that will be attributed to the construction of Turkey’s military base on its territory, believed to be as high as 1 billion dollars.

The real question is what is Qatar getting in return? – Although both countries have sought to hide the answer from the general public, it is still fairly obvious.

First of all, Qatar will greatly enhance its military and political independence from its neighbor – Saudi Arabia, which has been repeatedly trying to distance itself from Qatari policies and even condemned Doha for the financial support it has been providing to radical extremists. Moreover, there’s little doubt that it will untie Doha’s hands in the business of sponsoring radical movements in the Islamic world, which have been labeled by numerous experts as extremist or even terrorist groups. Qatar will be able to train future members of such groups on its military base in Turkey, as well as using Turkish extremists on its territory for the same purposes, raising new radical hordes for military engagements in Syria or other countries. Such grim predictions are not only made by international experts, but by the members of the Turkish opposition, the Republican People’s Party as well.

According to the French agency Intelligence, Saudi Arabia has opposed the construction of the Turkish military base in Qatar since its first announcement, as has the UAE.. The Arab world seems to be frankly worried by the strengthening of the military cooperation between Turkey and Qatar, since this basically means that radical movements like the Muslim Brotherhood will be getting even more active, equating to greater adversity for a number of regional players. Under these circumstances, taking into account the well-known unpredictability of Erdogan’s behavior, in the near future we may witness the worsening of Turkey’s relations with a number of Arab states and the further destabilization of the region.

Martin Berger is a Czech-based freelance journalist and analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.

“ … do we provide training and advice and help in order to make sure that countries actually obey the norms of humanitarian law? Yes, we do.” (David Cameron, Prime Minister’s Questions, 21^st January 2016.)

Afghanistan is a geostrategic and economic prize that the West will not want to relinquish anytime soon.

In an interview at the end of 2015, the former chief of staff to Colin Powell and retired US Army Colonel, Lawrence Wilkerson [pictured left], outlined the realistic timescale he believes the US will be involved in Afghanistan, in addition to emphasizing the strategic importance of the country to the US. Speaking to Abby Martin on her show ‘The Empire Files’ for Telesur, Wilkerson asserted that the “US presence in Afghanistan will not go away for another half-century” (from 20:05 into the interview):

“The war in Afghanistan has morphed; it’s not about al-Qaeda anymore, and it’s not about the Taliban anymore. It’s about China; Russia – the soft underbelly which is mostly Muslim of Russia; about Pakistan; about Iran; about Syria; about Iraq; about whether a Kurdistan is stood up or not; and ultimately about oil, water and energy in general. And the US presence in Afghanistan, I’ll predict right now, will not go away for another half-century… And it will grow, it will not decrease.”

This revelation by Wilkerson is important as the majority of the Western public continues to believe that the war in Afghanistan is predominately to do with fighting terrorism. Realistically, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan never really had anything to do with terrorism, but everything to do with geopolitics and the vast amount of economic riches the country possesses.

Similar to many other imperial wars we have seen in recent years, evidence suggests that the war in Afghanistan was pre-planned at least months prior to 9/11. The BBC reported on the 18th of September 2001 that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by US officials in July that the US was planning to attack Afghanistan in the coming months. A report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry in 2004 also revealed that the Bush administration had agreed on a plan to attack Afghanistan the day before 9/11.

Then, perfectly on time, 9/11 (also dubbed by the neoconservatives the “new Pearl Harbour” event) happens, giving the West the ideal justification to invade and occupy the country in addition to launching the global war on terror.

A look at the map reveals the geostrategic importance of Afghanistan, as it sits between Iran, China, Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics. As Wilkerson emphasizes, US military presence in Afghanistan is about an array of factors, most notably “about China,” “Iran” and “Russia.” Similar to the great game in previous centuries, Afghanistan and Central Asia will be a place of fierce competition between major powers in the coming years.

Broken Promises

Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has been one of the biggest pledges Obama has made since being elected President in 2008. Afghanistan is the most unpopular war in history according to some US polls, and Obama has repeatedly said he would pull all US troops out of the country. In 2012, he reiterated his position once again, stating that all US troops would be “out of there by 2014.”

Unsurprisingly, this was yet another broken promise by the puppet in chief. In October of last year, Obama announced that he would keep almost 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, and unless there is a dramatic shift in US foreign policy when the next President takes office, US troops will remain in the country for decades to come. Even if all US troops are withdrawn in the years to come, the legions of private armies comprised of mercenaries and contractors will continue to operate in the country.

An Abundance of Riches

As the New York Times reported in a 2010 article titled: US Identifies Vast Mineral Resources in Afghanistan, the country is home to vast amounts of precious minerals. From copper to iron, gold to lithium, the mineral wealth of Afghanistan is estimated to worth approximately $1 trillion. In the modern world, materials such as lithium are extremely valuable, with the light-weight metal being used in the majority of laptops and smartphones.

The NYT article is filled with its usual spin and disinformation however, as it tries to argue that the mineral discovery is somehow a recent one. Contrary to this narrative, Afghanistan’s mineral wealth has been well-known since at least the 1970’s, and was clearly known by strategists in Washington for decades.

Add the dramatic surge in opium production since the 2001 invasion of the country to its geopolitical importance and mineral wealth, and it’s clear to see why the US will continue to have a presence in Afghanistan for “another half-century.”

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Boycotting of Israeli goods to be a criminal offence as ‘severe penalties’ threatened against local councils, universities and student unions, in Britain,  who refuse to buy goods originating from illegal settlements in Israeli-occupied West Bank:  UK Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock  will formally announce when he visits Israel this week. As Philip Giraldi writes:

‘It is a global phenomenon. Wherever one goes – Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States – there is a well-organized and funded lobby ready, willing and able to go to war to protect Israel. Their goal is to spread propaganda and influence the public in their respective countries of residence to either hew to the line coming out of Tel Aviv or to confuse the narrative and stifle debate when potential Israeli crimes are being discussed.’

‘Recent Israel Lobby activity in the United States has included legislation at state levels to make illegal divestment from Israel or to promote boycott of Israeli products. A trade pact with Europe will reportedly include language requiring the United States to take retaliatory action if any European country tries to boycott Israel, to include the West Bank settlements, which the empowering legislation regards as part of Israel proper.’

‘Many prominent critics of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) are unaware that AIPAC exists in various forms in a number of other countries. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is located in London. The French equivalent is the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF). In Canada there is a Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) , in Australia a Zionist Federation of Australia and in New Zealand a Zionist Federation of New Zealand.’

‘Prime Minister David Cameron’s government, which is responsive to a Conservative Friends of Israel lobbying group … is proposing legislation that will enable it to overrule decisions by local government councils that seek to cut business or investment ties with Israel and, more particularly, Israeli settlements, under the pretext that such action interferes with the conduct of foreign affairs.’

Read Giraldi’s entire article here.

Whether you live in the United States or not, you have an interest in abolishing the U.S. military draft, and now the U.S. Congress might do it.

Click here to add your name to the petition we will deliver to Congress.

Please forward to everyone you can.

To: The United States Congress

Pass the new bill to abolish the military draft: “H.R.4523 – To repeal the Military Selective Service Act, and thereby terminate the registration requirements of such Act and eliminate civilian local boards, civilian appeal boards, and similar local agencies of the Selective Service System.”

Why is this important?

A bureaucracy unused since Richard Nixon left office, an institution that has served no purpose since before people already too old for it were born, a machinery whose only function is to send huge numbers of unwilling young men (and some hope to expand it to include young women) into immoral actions should be abolished. This bipartisan bill would make that happen. The selective service budget is $23-26 million every year. There are also costs to the states and financial aid offices that must ensure people are registered before administering benefits. Many states automatically register men who obtain driver’s licenses for selective service; that technology should remain in place but be used to automatically register men and women to vote. Opponents of war and supporters of conscientious objection back this bill. You can too.

SIGNED BY

David Swanson, WarIsACrime.org

Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Alice Slater

David Hartsough

Maria Santelli, Center on Conscience and War

Leah Bolger

How it will be delivered

In Washington, D.C.

SIGN HERE: http://diy.rootsaction.org/p/nodraft

Ask your organizations to support.

Forward this everywhere.

Sign the Declaration of Peace.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter.

Support World Beyond War’s work by clicking here.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are advancing to the West of the Raqqa province. Currently, the Syrian Armed Forces are approximately 35 km away from the Tabqa military airport — their primary objective in Raqqa at the moment. The Syrian forces are also pursuing to secure the Salamiyah-Raqqa highway.

The Kurdish fighters, backed by Russian warplanes are currently engaged in intense clashes with the terrorist groups at the Western entrance of the town of Tal Rifat town in the Aleppo province. It’s confirmed that several terrorists of al-Nusra, including their commander Abdulsalam al-Saan, were killed in the air raids in the area of Tal Rifat.

“Investors are losing confidence in central bank policies. (They) have done all they can do, and these policies may not improve economic growth or may not support financial markets.”

— Anthony Valeri, investment strategist at LPL Financial

Zero rates and QE have stopped working and that has investors worried. Very worried.

If you want to know why stocks have been taking it on the chin lately, look no further than the quote above. Mr. Valeri nails it. The Central Banks have lost their touch which is why investors are cashing in and heading for the exits. This has nothing to do with the slowdown in China,  bank troubles in Europe, capital flight in the emerging markets,  droopy oil prices, or the deceleration in the global economy. Forget about that stuff. The real problem is that investors have lost confidence in the Fed. And for good reason.

Keep in mind, that for the last 5 years or so, bad news has been good news and good news has been bad news. What does that mean?

It means that every report that showed the economy was underperforming or getting worse was greeted with cheers from Wall Street because they knew the Fed would promise additional accommodation (QE) or continue to maintain zero rates into the future.  The Fed conditioned investors to ignore fundamentals and merely respond to the Pavlovian promise of more cheap money. That cheap money helped fuel a rally that tripled the value of the S&P 500 while inflating asset bubbles across the spectrum. But now the impact of low rates appears to be wearing thin which has investors concerned that the Fed has run out of bullets.

Why? What changed?

In the last couple of weeks, the second and third biggest central banks (The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) either announced or launched additional easing programs, but to no effect.  The BOJ implemented negative rates (NIRP) expecting the yen to weaken and stocks to rally. Instead, stocks fell off a cliff losing an astonishing 7.6 percent on the Nikkei while the yen strengthened by nearly 10 percent against the dollar. In other words, the results were the opposite of what the BOJ wanted.

The same thing happened to the ECB although Mario Draghi has not actually increased QE yet. The ECB is currently buying €60 billion of mainly sovereign bonds per month under the existing program ostensibly to trigger credit growth and boost inflation. Draghi increased speculation that he would boost the bank’s monthly purchases (by €15) at the World Economic Forum in January when he said:

“We have plenty of instruments. We have the determination, and the willingness of the governing council to act and deploy these instruments.”

Usually, a strong statement like that would be enough to send stocks into the stratosphere, but not this time. Since then, EU markets have tanked and the euro has strengthened against the dollar. Once again, the results have been the exact opposite of what was intended.

So the question is: If the promise of easy money and QE is no longer working in Japan or Europe, why would work in the US?  Or, put differently: Has radical monetary policy lost its ability to prevent stocks from going into freefall? (The Bernanke Put)

This is what investors want to know.

Keep in mind, QE has not increased inflation in any of the countries where it’s been implemented. Nor has it boosted lending, triggered a credit expansion or strengthened growth. It’s a total fraud.  But it has had a big impact on stock prices, which is why central banks love it.

But now that’s changed. Now QE is backfiring and zero rates have lost their potency. Investors know this. They know that monetary policy has run-out-the-clock and that overpriced stocks –which have been outpacing flagging earnings for years–are going to return earth with a thud. This is why the selloff could continue for some time to come.

Of course, now the focus has shifted to “negative interest rates”, the latest fad in central banking that is supposed to boost lending by charging banks a small fee on excess reserves. It’s another nutty attempt to prove that if you put money on sale, people will borrow. But what we’ve seen over the last seven years is that there are times when people won’t borrow no matter how cheap money is. The Fed can’t seem to grasp this. They can’t see to wrap their minds around the simple fact that reducing the cost of borrowing, does not always make it more desirable. Households that are trying to pay down their debts, increase their equity or save for retirement might not want to borrow regardless of how cheap the rates might be.

In any event, negative rates (NIRP) have already been implemented in Europe and Japan where the results are mixed. Here’s how Nomura’s chief economist Richard Koo summed up the phenom in his recent newsletter:

“In my view,  the adoption of negative interest rates is an act of desperation born out of despair over the inability of quantitative easing and inflation targeting to produce the desired results. That monetary policy has come this far is a clear indication that both ECB President Mario Draghi and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda have fundamentally misunderstood the ongoing recession…..” (“Macro and Credit…The Vasa Ship”, Macronomics)

Indeed. Now compare Koo’s comments to those of  OECD Economic Committee Chairman, William White, who was asked what he thought the effects of negative rates would be on the economy in a recent Bloomberg interview:

William White:

“The truth is, nobody really knows. The thing about these experiments, is that they’re experiments. We have no historic precedence for this kind of behavior by central banks at all. EVER. So the answer is: We don’t know.  The general idea is that if you charge negative interest rates on the reserves that the banks hold at the central banks that somehow this will translate into lower lending rate and more stimulus for the economy.  But you have to realize that these negative rates will actually squeeze the banks margins, squeezing bank profits. This is something we actually don’t want because we want them to make more money so they can build up capital buffers. So what are the banks going to do?

Well, one possibility is that they lower the deposit rates for customers. That’s possible, but then people might take money out. The other possibility is that you simply raise the rate for people to borrow, which is the exact opposite for which the policy was intended. So, I repeat, this is all experimental. We’ll wait and see how it turns out. But I’m rather skeptical.”

(“OECD’s White Says More Wage Growth Attention Needed“, Bloomberg)

In other words, it’s just not a very well thought-out plan. Either the banks take the hit or the borrowers do. Either way, the plan won’t boost lending, generate a strong credit expansion or grow the economy. After seven years of this same nonsense, we should be willing to admit that reducing the price of money will not lead to an economic recovery. Of that, we can be 100 percent certain.

So, what will generate a strong recovery? This is the question Bloomberg put to White after he expressed his reservations about negative rates. Here’s his advice:

“Those who have fiscal room to maneuver, should use it.

I think there should be more attention paid to wage growth, which has been too low and so spending has been too low in consequence.

We need much more public infrastructure which is an asset to go with a government liability.

We need more systematic approaches to debt reduction and debt relief.

And we need a lot more structural reform to get that low hanging fruit to allow the economy to grow faster and to allow debt service to be more easily managed.”  (“OECD’s White Says More Wage Growth Attention Needed”, Bloomberg)

Fiscal stimulus?  Wage growth?  Debt relief?  Progressive reforms?

In other words, we’ve piddled-away seven-long years on radical monetary experiments that have achieved nothing and led us right back to where we began, at plain-old Keynesian fiscal stimulus, the only reliable way to put people back to work, stimulate growth, and get the economy back up-and-running.

Better late than never, I guess.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

In the midst of skyrocketing inflation, food scarcity and economic stagnation in Venezuela, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) party is maneuvering for the removal of President Nicholas Maduro.

In December’s legislative elections, the MUD won a landslide victory over Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) as voters reacted to the failure of the “Chavista” government to address widespread poverty and economic insecurity. In the aftermath of the election, the MUD made provocative press statements giving Maduro a six month deadline to solve the crisis.

On February 11, legislative opposition leader Henry Ramos Allup delivered the most provocative statements yet. “If anyone was thinking the six months we had given ourselves to find a democratic, constitutional, peaceful and electoral solution… was too hurried, today nobody doubts that this six month period was too long.”

The statement was given in response to a decision announced that same day by Venezuela’s highest court. The court voted to uphold Maduro’s January declaration of a state of “economic emergency,” which granted the executive branch special powers to bypass the legislature in responding to the crisis.

The constitutional crisis between the legislative and judicial branches is the product of a deep fracture in the Venezuelan ruling class that threatens to boil over in the coming weeks. Ramos Allup announced that “in the coming days we will offer an exit proposal for the disgrace that is this government.”

The Venezuelan constitution allows for popular recall of elected officials, including the president. A referendum can only take place after the official’s term has reached its midway point, which in Madero’s case would be in April 2016. The number of votes required to recall Madero will be roughly 200,000 votes less than the total received by the MUD in the December legislative elections. In other words, a successful recall is a clear possibility.

But Ramos Allup alluded to something more in his speech:

“There is a movement within the government that is asking for Maduro’s resignation as the lesser evil,” he said. The government “is doing everything possible to give itself a coup, I don’t have any doubt because it’s the only justification that we have after this defeat and the monumental errors of 17 years.”

The implications of these words are clear enough in a country that has had six coups d’état in the last 70 years.

Maduro has responded by making clear that his government is prepared to defend Venezuelan capitalism at all costs. Speaking Thursday at a ribbon cutting ceremony for a factory in the state of Carabobo, he said, “We are taking care of social and labor stability, and we are making a daily effort to maintain the entire productive capacity of the country.” In recent weeks, Maduro has made good on his promise by sending civil guard forces to quell isolated strikes.

The political crisis in Venezuela has been sparked by an escalating economic crisis. The failure of the nationalist, export-based economic reforms of Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez have ended in widespread poverty and social misery.

A 75 percent drop in the price of oil has produced a ripple effect in the Venezuelan economy, where “missiones” social programs are largely dependent on the country’s export of crude oil. In early February, Venezuela had an oil reserve of 300 billion barrels—eight times the reserves of the United States. Venezuela’s exports are expected to total around $27 billion in 2016, down from $75 billion in 2014.

In the third quarter of 2015, the Venezuelan economy shrank 7.1 percent. Inflation was at 141 percent for the year ending in September 2015, and many experts believe inflation will exceed 200 percent in 2016. There is a real possibility of a debt default, with half of the country’s $10 billion in debt payments due this November. “The country is in economic meltdown. The figures are predictably horrific,” economist Edward Glossop of the research firm Capital Economics told CNN.

Video has surfaced of food riots outside of a Central Madeirense supermarket in the town Acarigua. A scarcity of food has produced a desperate situation for millions of working class Venezuelans, with some states reporting that 70 to 90 percent of grocery stores lack basic staples like rice, chicken and corn flour.

Under these conditions of chaos, the right-wing MUD, backed by US imperialism, is creating conditions for a change in power. In particular, the US government wants to obtain access to Venezuela’s oil, which is currently processed and sold by the state-owned oil company, Petroleum of Venezuela (PDVSA).

In November 2015, documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was operating a massive surveillance operation out of the US Embassy in Caracas to hack into the computer network of PDVSA.

After the program was made public, US State Department spokesman John Kirby said that the US government “has no interest or intent to destabilize the Venezuelan government.” Kirby added, “There’s no intent to use electronic surveillance to benefit commercial gains.”

These claims are laughable. The US has funded numerous dictatorships and death squads across Latin America in an effort to more effectively extract resources on behalf of American corporations.

In 2002, the CIA was the instigator of a coup attempt against Chavez. In the months before the attempt, coup leader Pedro Carmona made regular visits to the White House and met with Bush administration officials, who gave explicit support for the coup. Twenty people were killed in the coup attempt, which fell apart when the military and hundreds of thousands of people converged on the presidential palace to demand Chavez’s reinstatement.

But the crisis in Venezuela today is a product of the failure of Chavez’s program and his so-called Bolivian Revolution. The Chavez and Maduro governments have responded to workers’ strikes with massive state repression and have based their programs on a defense of capitalism with only mild social reforms and limited nationalizations.

Their nationalist approach has left the population vulnerable to fluctuations in the world oil market, with devastating consequences for workers and peasants. Only a movement of the working class, independent of the Bolivian PSUV and linked in struggle with the workers of North and South America, can oppose efforts by MUD and US imperialism to further carve up the country on behalf of Wall Street.

In the lead up to this summer’s parliamentary upper house election, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe intends to make constitutional revision a major feature of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) campaign. The proposed changes would formally remove any barriers to Japan’s ability to wage war to further its strategic and economic interests, as well as deepen the attack on democratic rights at home.

Abe has made explicit calls in recent weeks for the revision of the constitution. On February 3, he stated before a parliamentary budget committee: “There is the view that [Japan should] address the situation in which 70 percent of constitutional scholars suspect the SDF (Self-Defense Forces) is in violation of the Constitution.”

Abe was responding to a question from Tomomi Inada, chairwoman of the LDP’s Policy Research Council and supporter of constitutional change, who claimed that Article 9 of the post-World War II constitution “no longer fits reality at all.” Article 9 declares that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”

Successive post-war governments in Japan have tacitly breached Article 9 and built up a large military under the guise of “self defense,” despite the constitution’s declaration that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.” Over the past two decades, the Japanese military has been deployed overseas, including in support of the US-led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Increasingly, however, the Japanese ruling class wants to cast off the constitutional restraints. Last summer, the LDP-led government, in the face of widespread opposition and protests, rammed through military legislation to allow Tokyo to engage in “collective self-defense,” which in reality means taking part in predatory wars alongside an ally, namely the United States.

The new laws are in clear violation of the constitution, as many constitutional scholars have stated. Far from backtracking from this unconstitutional legislation, Abe is now cynically using the lack of constitutional authority to press forward with the LDP’s long-held plans for a wholesale revision of the constitution.

In the budget committee, Abe continued: “Given the view that we should change this with our own hands, the LDP has announced a draft revised constitution.” The draft, proposed in April 2012, not only alters Article 9, but also makes numerous other changes that limit democratic rights and strengthen the state.

First, the draft would turn the SDF, the official name of Japan’s military, into a “National Defense Force” with the prime minister as commander-in-chief. This force could be deployed abroad under the guise of international peace-keeping operations, as well as domestically to suppress opposition to the government.

The proposal would also impose “duties” on the Japanese population, including to “respect” the national flag, anthem and the new constitution. It further states that “engaging in activities with the purpose of damaging public interest or public order, or associating with others for such purposes, shall not be recognized.” In other words, the freedom to criticize the government would effectively be banned.

The LDP’s draft alters the role of the emperor, making him “head of state,” while removing the emperor’s or a regent’s obligation to respect and uphold the constitution. This would concentrate more power in the anachronistic and backward institution, moving to return the emperor to the position he held before World War II.

The government, however, confronts significant barriers to constitutional revision, which must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of parliament, as well as by a majority of the voting population at a referendum. While the LDP and its ally Komeito hold a two-thirds majority in the Lower House, they have only a simple majority in the Upper House and need 86 additional seats.

Speaking at a New Year’s press conference on January 4, Abe said the LDP “will appeal for [constitutional revision] strongly during the House of Councillors (Upper House) election campaign, just as we have thus far.” Abe claimed there was “unshakeable” support for the SDF in Japan to support his decision.

In reality, there is widespread opposition to remilitarization. Last summer, mass protests took place throughout the country opposing the security legislation to expand the role of the SDF internationally in support of allies like the United States. These protests culminated in an August 30 demonstration of 120,000 people denouncing the bills in front of the parliament building in Tokyo.

In order to obtain the seats needed, the LDP is seeking additional coalition partners. Last month, Abe acknowledged that winning the necessary seats in the upcoming election would be difficult. In response, Nobuyuki Baba, secretary-general of the right-wing Osaka Ishin no Kai, said his party would “cooperate positively” with the LDP and Komeito’s efforts to change the constitution.

Since his February 3 remarks though, Abe has toned down his calls for constitutional revision. While not facing outright opposition, some within the LDP are clearly concerned that anti-war sentiment could result in an unwanted electoral backlash. “An appropriate approach would be to proceed [with the constitutional revision] while winning the understanding of the largest opposition party,” LDP secretary general Sadakazu Tanigaki said.

The main opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), however, is attempting to exploit the anti-war sentiment for electoral purposes. DPJ leader Katsuya Okada said last month: “If the prime minister secures a two-thirds majority, he will surely amend the Constitution. As his deepest wish is to revise Article 9, we must block him from achieving the two-thirds majority by all means.”

While in power from September 2009 to December 2012, the DPJ supported constitutional revision to allow Japan’s military to be used in a far greater capacity, often attaching the necessity of a UN resolution to provide a veneer of legitimacy. A 2012 report from a prime ministerial committee stated: “Related interpretations [of laws] should be changed to allow collective defense in order to uphold proactive pacifism in the long-term.”

Significantly, Abe has seized on “proactive pacifism” as the banner for his accelerating remilitarization of Japan.

Furthermore, the DPJ governments deepened Japan’s aggressive stance toward China. In 2012, under Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, Tokyo provocatively purchased three of the five disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands from their private owner, provoking sharp tensions with China.

For all its posturing as an opponent of Abe’s constitutional change, the DPJ, which also represents the interests of Japanese imperialism, has no principled opposition to removing legal and constitutional restraints on the military.

Just when the biotech companies that make transgenic seeds are merging, the corporate vision of biotechnology is showing up at FAO. At today’s opening of the three-day international symposium on agricultural biotechnologies convened by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome, more than 100 social movement and civil society organisations (CSOs) from four continents have issued a statement denouncing both the substance and structure of the meeting, which appears to be another attempt by multinational agribusiness to redirect the policies of the UN agency toward support for genetically-engineered crops and livestock.

GRAIN’s report shows how fertiliser companies have infiltrated the main policy processes on agriculture and climate to position chemical fertilisers as a solution to climate change and to weaken support for non-chemical farming. Under the banner of “climate smart agriculture”, fertiliser companies work in alliance with other food and agribusiness corporations to lobby for voluntary, company-led programmes that promote the use of fertilisers, such as Wal-Mart’s climate smart agriculture programme or the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture.

Here you can download the statement and list of signatories.

The global peasant and family farm movement, La Via Campesina, invited CSOs to sign the letter when the symposium’s agenda became public. Two of the FAO keynote speakers are known proponents of GMOs, and the agenda and side events over the three days include speakers from the Biotechnology Industry Organization (a biotech trade group in the USA), Crop Life International (the global agrochemical trade association), DuPont (one of the world’s largest biotech seed companies) and CEVA (a major veterinary medicine corporation), among others. FAO has only invited one speaker or panellist openly critical of GMOs. Worse, one of the two speakers at the opening session is a former assistant director general of FAO who has pushed for so-called Terminator seeds (GMO seeds programmed to die at harvest time forcing farmers to purchase new seeds every growing season), in opposition to FAO’s own public statements. The second keynoter’s speech is titled, “Toward ending the misplaced global debate on biotechnology”, suggesting that the FAO symposium should be the moment for shutting down biotech criticism.

In convening the biased symposium, FAO is bowing to industry pressure that intensified following international meetings on agroecology hosted by FAO in 2014 and 2015. The agroecology meetings were a model of openness to all viewpoints, from peasants to industry. But the biotech industry apparently prefers now to have a meeting they can control. This is not the first time FAO has been drawn into this game. In 2010, FAO convened a biotechnology conference in Guadalajara, Mexico, that blocked farmers from its organising committee, and then tried to prevent their attendance at the conference itself.

“We are alarmed that FAO is once again fronting for the same corporations, just when these companies are talking about further mergers amongst themselves, which would concentrate the commercial seeds sector in even fewer hands”, the CSO statement denounces.

It is clear, according to the civil society statement, that industry wants to use FAO to re-launch their false message that genetically engineered crops can feed the world and cool the planet, while the reality is that nothing has changed on the biotech front. GMOs don’t feed people, they are mostly planted in a handful of countries on industrial plantations for agrofuels and animal feed, they increase pesticide use, and they throw farmers off the land. Transnational biotech companies are trying to patent the planet’s bodiversity, which shows that their main interest is to make enormous profits, and not to guarantee food security or food sovereignty. The industrial food system that these companies promote is also one of the main drivers of climate change. Confronted with the rejection of GMOs by many consumers and producers, the industry is now inventing new and possibly dangerous breeding techniques to genetically modify plants, without calling them GMOs. In doing so, they are trying to avoid current GMO regulations and trick consumers and farmers.

The agroecology activities were much closer to the way that FAO should act, the Statement points out, “as a centre for knowledge exchange, without a hidden agenda on behalf of a few.” Why does FAO now limit itself again to corporate biotechnology and deny the existence of peasant technologies? FAO should support the peasant technologies, that offer the most innovative, open source, and the effective pathway to ending hunger and malnutrition. It is time to stop pushing a narrow corporate agenda, says civil society. “The vast majority of the world’s farmers are peasants, and it is peasants who feed the world. We need peasant-based technologies, not corporate biotechnologies.”

“It is high time that FAO puts an end to biopiracy and to its support for genetically modified crops, which only serve to allow a handful of transnational companies to patent and to grab all the existing biodiversity,” said La Via Campesina leader Guy Kastler. “On the contrary, FAO should support farmers’ organisations and researchers engaged in collaborative plant breeding in the service of food sovereignty and peasant agroecology”.

Media contacts in Rome:

Guy Kastler and other Via Campesina leaders

E-mail: [email protected]

Britain’s Conservative government is to announce next week a law that would ban local councils, student unions and other public bodies form boycotting goods for political reasons. The rules are widely seen as meant to protect goods produced by Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank.

The plan to introduce such legislation was first proposed by the Conservative Party at its annual conference in October 2015. Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock is to formally announce the new regulation during his visit to Israel next week, The Independent reported.

The rules would ban institutions that receive the majority of their funding from the government from participating in procurement political campaigns, choosing not to buy products from companies on political grounds. The only exception would be nationwide boycotts mandated by the government.

London also wants to change the rules for pension investments so that they could not be used for punishing companies for political reasons.

“We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town hall boycotts,” Hancock told The Sunday Times.

“The new guidance on procurement, combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested, will help prevent damaging and counterproductive local foreign policies undermining our national security.”

The new rules are not unlike the restrictions imposed on local councils in 1988 by right-wing Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to prevent them from putting economic pressure on the apartheid regime in South Africa by boycotting its goods. The parallel has not passed unnoticed by the opposition Labour Party, which has accused the Tories of imposing their policies on local councils undemocratically.

“This government’s ban would have outlawed council action against apartheid South Africa. Ministers talk about devolution, but in practice they’re imposing Conservative Party policies on elected local councils across the board,” Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said.

He called the ban an attack on local democracy.

This government is almost at the point of rubbing shoulders with fascism.https://t.co/p5fVpzgA1n #DavidCameron #Tories

— Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand) February 14, 2016

Amnesty International’s UK economic relations program director Peter Frankental said the move could encourage human rights violations.

“Where’s the incentive for companies to ensure there are no human rights violations such as slavery in their supply chains, when public bodies cannot hold them to account by refusing to award them contracts?” he said.

“Not only would it be a bad reflection on public bodies to contract with rogue companies, but it would also be bad for responsible businesses that are at risk of being undercut by those that have poor practices.”

The movement to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories, the so-called Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, is meant to put pressure on Israel to stop human right abuses against Palestinians. It was first announced in 2005, with Israel vigorously opposing it.

In the UK, Leicester City Council passed a policy to boycott such goods in November 2014. In August 2014, the Scottish government recommended that Scottish local councils joined the boycott, with four of them following the lead.

Featured image: From the poster for the 1962 film ‘Les Quatre Cavaliers de l’Acopalypse’. Photo: CartelesCine via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA)

The world is in the grip of a structural war against people, land, economies and ecosystems, writes Colin Todhunter. It is being waged by a quartet of organised criminal interests bent on monopolizing energy, money, food and violence across the globe. But a deep-rooted resistance against their ‘neoliberal’ doctrine of death and destruction is fighting back.

The US has about 5% of the world’s population but consumes 24% of global energy. On average, one person in the US consumes as much energy as two Japanese, six Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians and 370 Ethiopians.

It is able to consume at such a level because the dollar serves as the world reserve currency. This means high demand for it is guaranteed as most international trade (especially oil) is carried out using the dollar. US dominance and wealth accumulation depends on maintaining the currency’s leading role.

The international monetary system that emerged near the end of the Second World War was based on the US being the dominant economic power and the main creditor nation, with institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund eventually being created to serve its interests.

Since coming off the gold standard in the early 1970s, Washington has been able to run up a huge balance of payments deficit by using the (oil-backed) paper dollar as security in itself (rather than outright ownership of gold) and engaging in petro-dollar recycling and treasury-bond super-imperialism.

Like all empires, Washington has developed a system to hitch a ride courtesy of the rest of the world funding its generally high standard of living, militarism, financial bubbles, speculations and corporate takeovers.

With its control and manipulation of the World Bank, IMF and WTO, the US has been able to lever the trade and the financial system to its advantage by various means (for example, see this analysis of how Saudi Arabia’s oil profits enabled Wall Street to entrap African nations into debt).

Based on the US neocons’ objectives for the 21st century war, as outlined by the Project for a New American Century and underpinned by the Wolfowitz doctrine, Washington will not allow its global hegemony and the role of the dollar to be challenged.

Given Russia’s re-emergence on the global stage and China’s rise, we are witnessing a sense of urgency to destabilise and undermine both countries, especially as they are now increasingly bypassing the dollar when doing business.

US strategic objectives and the role of agribusiness

The only real alternative for humanity is to turn away from what Gandhi called a “nine-day wonder” model of development, which strips the environment bare. If we are to avoid ecological meltdown and ultimately what appears to be a possible nuclear conflict, we must reject capitalism and militarism by reorganising economies so that nations live within their environmental means.

Part of this involves a major shift away from the petro-chemical industrial model of agriculture and food production, not only because it leads to bad food, poor health and environmental degradation and is ultimately unsustainable but also because this model has underpinned a destructive US foreign policy agenda for many decades.

Such a shift would however run counter to the aims of the powerful agribusiness cartel, which, despite its propaganda about helping poor farmers and feeding the world’s hungry, regards ordinary people as impediments to commercial gain or as assets to be exploited for profit.

Any talk about ‘helping’ people is a case of the iron fist of capitalism being wrapped up in a velvet glove. We need look no further than Global Justice Now’s recent report on the role of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Africa to appreciate this.

If this cartel and its compliant politicians and cheerleaders in academia and the media really want to ‘help the poor’, they would be challenging the policies and structures that create hunger and poverty rather than continue to offer the disease as the cure and attack those who are actually spearheading this challenge.

Oil-fuelled monocropping – thanks for that, Rockefellers!

However, the prevailing order exists for the benefit of big agribusiness, which continues to colonise global agriculture and is in effect part of an establishment (for example see this and this) that regards food and agriculture as integral to US strategic objectives.

For instance, the ‘green revolution’ was exported courtesy of the oil-rich Rockefeller family. Poorer nations adopted petrochemical-dependent agriculture that required loans for inputs and infrastructure development. This was underpinned by the propaganda that these countries would earn dollars to prosper (and repay the loans) through adopting mono-crop, export-oriented policies.

It entailed uprooting traditional agriculture and integrating nations into a globalised system of debt bondage, rigged trade relations and the hollowing out and destruction of national and local economies.

Despite the often presented claims that the green revolution saved tens (or hundreds) of millions of lives, speculative assessments must be placed within a suitable context and vehemently contested, not least because of the deleterious impacts on food, health, the environment and farmers’ livelihoods.

But it cannot be denied that some have benefited enormously: oil, financial and agribusiness interests in the West.

GMOs are Green Revolution 2.0

The fraudulent GMO project represents the second coming of the green revolution.

Of course, appropriate frameworks have to be put to uproot indigenous farming and replace it with a corporate-controlled, chemical-intensive industrialised model. We need look no further to see this in action from Mexico to India and beyond, where traditional food production and retail sectors are being hijacked by mainly US corporate interests.

NAFTA set the framework for plunder in Mexico, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture is playing a similar role in India and various bilateral trade agreements such as TTIP and TPP will consolidate the process.

Thanks to the interests and demands of global agribusiness, farmers are leaving agriculture in India because it has been deliberately made financially non viable to continue. This, along with the impact of GM cotton (see this report on the direct link between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in rain-fed areas of India), is the main reason why 300,000 have committed suicide in the last two decades.

In attempting to dismiss or play down the link between Bt cotton and farmer suicides, prominent neoliberal apologists should consider the role of the interests they represent (see ‘The Making of an Agribusiness Apologist‘) in causing hardship, hunger, poverty and devastation, instead of setting out to smear the likes of Vandana Shiva or spending their time trying to sideline the issue by attempting to debunk each and every GM-suicide link that emerges.

Although the globalized hijack of food and agriculture by powerful corporations results in poverty, dependency and food insecurity, we are deceitfully informed that we must have more of the same if we are to feed an increasing global population and eradicate poverty.

We are told that the solutions for feeding a projected world population of nine billion are more technical fixes: more petrochemical-dependent agriculture, more GMOs and more unnecessary shifting of food across the planet.

Another bogus ‘solution’ that benefits only the global monopolists

Such a ‘solution’ is bogus: we already produce enough food to feed the world’s population and did so even at the peak of the world food crisis in 2008, and GM crops that are on the market today are not designed to address hunger.

Four GM crops account for almost 100% of worldwide GM crop acreage, and all four have been developed for large-scale industrial farming systems and are used as cash crops for export, to produce fuel or for processed food and animal feed. Of course, throw in a heavy dose of ‘family planning‘ (depopulation) for the ‘third world’ and we will be just fine.

But even if the world would at some stage require increased agricultural productivity, organic methods could fulfil the need. For example, there are agro-ecological approaches like system of rice intensification, non-pesticidal management of crops, integrated farming systems, which have all been shown to increase yields in sustainable ways.

Moreover, many of these systems have demonstrated their capacity for dealing with climate change issues, not least drought.

The current situation is that the likes of trade policies, land takeovers, commodity speculation and strings-attached loans serve to marginalise small holder farmers in the global south, who comprise the backbone of food production, and lead to food insecurity.

The four horsemen of the Apocalypse

There is a prevailing notion that we can just continue as we are, with an endless supply of oil, endless supplies of meat and the endless assault on soil, human and environmental well-being that intensive petrochemical agriculture entails. Given the figures quoted at the start of this article, this is unsustainable and unrealistic and is a recipe for continued resource-driven conflicts and devastation.

The genuine answer is to adopt more organic and ecological farming systems that are locally based and less reliant on petrochemicals. This would also mean a shift away from an emphasis on producing meat that places a massive burden on the environment and is highly land, water and energy-input intensive.

The current economic system suits the interests of oil barons, Wall Street (including land and commodity speculators), global agribusiness and the major arms companies. These interlocking, self-serving interests constitute the four horsemen of the modern-day capitalist Apocalypse (big pharma probably should probably be included) and through their actions have managed to institute a globalised system of war and structural violence that results in poverty and devastated economies.

Through this elite interests’ influence over powerful think tanks, directorships and board memberships and the horizontal and vertical integration of parent/sister corporate entities and cross-ownership, it ensures the corporate media says what it wants it to say, opposition is side-lined, muzzled or subverted, wars are fought on its behalf and the corporate control of every facet of life is increasingly brought under its influence – and that includes food: what is in it, who grows it and who sells it.

Fail to understand the set up described here and you will fail to grasp that companies like Monsanto are but a tentacle of elite interests.

Monsanto is integral to a system of globalisation that benefits the US-Anglo Western elite, whose neoliberal agenda is backed up by a militarism that ensures these interests are served if other means fail (see John Perkins here discussing his time as an economic hitman).

And the result has often been highly profitable on the back of economic and social devastation. Look no further than Michel Chossudovsky’s analysis of Somalia or Ethiopia to see how agribusiness made a killing from policies that destroyed local economies and farming.

The US and its corporations, facilitated by the IMF and WTO, effectively dismantle agrarian economies and then offer the problem as the cure.

Resisting global food imperialism

Ultimately, food and agrarian issues are not about ‘marching against Monsanto’ – as important as that is – it is about understanding the geopolitics of food and agriculture and challenging an increasingly integrated global cartel of finance, oil, military and agribusiness concerns that seek to gain from war, debt bondage and the control of resources.

Concerns about food security, good health and nutrition, biodiversity, food democracy, farmers’ livelihoods in the global south, etc, must be placed within this wider context if we are to fully understand them.

People want solutions for hunger, poverty and conflict but are too often told there is no alternative to what exists. The solution lies in taking manipulated markets and rigged trade rules out of farming and investing in and supporting indigenous knowledge, agroecology, education and infrastructure, instead of inappropriately diverting funds to underperforming sectors.

This involves rejecting the agenda of big agribusiness, whether in Africa, India, South America or elsewhere, and resisting the strategy of using agriculture as a geopolitical tool.

It involves challenging the corporate takeover of agriculture, supporting food sovereignty movements and embracing sustainable agriculture that is locally owned and rooted in the needs of communities.

Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher, based in the UK and India.

Support Colin’s work here.

This article is a revised and updated (by the author) version of one originally published on Colin’s website.

Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems, whose weapons systems are used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), will train British RAF aircrew, it was recently announced.

Affinity Flying Services Ltd, a joint venture in the UK owned 50-50 by Elbit and US-based Kellog, Brown and Root (KBR), “won a contract from the UK Defence Ministry’s military flight training programme worth about 500 million pounds over 18 years.”

The programme, according to Reuters, “is aimed at delivering aircrew training for the 21st century.” Affinity, a subcontractor, “will provide systems and training infrastructure and maintenance and logistics support services.”

Responding to the news, Elbit Systems CEO Butzi Machlis said: “We are very proud to take part in such an important project for the UK MOD [Ministry of Defence].” According to Machlis, “the United Kingdom is one of Elbit Systems’ primary markets.”

Industry publication ‘Defense News’ described the deal as “a substantial win for KBR and its Israeli partner”, noting that “Elbit already has a footprint in the UK, most notably as Thales UK’s partner in the supply of the Watchkeeper UAV program to the British Army.”

Elbit Systems is a long-standing target of human rights campaigners. According to activists, the company “has profited greatly from supplying the Israeli military with a variety of equipment used to sustain Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people.”

An article published by Vice in 2014, as Israel was bombarding the Gaza Strip, stated that Elbit had “several weapons systems currently being used by the IDF” in its offensive. Others have described Elbit as a “notorious war profiteer”, with its shares rising 6.6% after ‘Operation Protective Edge’.

Emphasis added by Global Research

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleague Mr Valls, distinguished Mr Ischinger, my speech will be of a more general nature, but I hope it will be useful.

The first cold war ended 25 years ago. This is not long in terms of history, but it is a considerable period for individual people and even for generations. And it is certainly sufficient for assessing our common victories and losses, setting new goals and, of course, avoiding a repetition of past mistakes.

The Munich Security Conference has been known as a venue for heated and frank discussion. This is my first time here. Today I’d like to tell you about Russia’s assessment of the current European security situation and possible solutions to our common problems, which have been aggravated by the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West.

Before coming to this conference, I met with President Putin. We talked about his speech at the Munich conference in 2007. He said then that ideological stereotypes, double standards and unilateral actions do not ease but only fan tensions in international relations, reducing the international community’s opportunities for adopting meaningful political decisions.

Did we overstate this? Were our assessments of the situation too pessimistic? Unfortunately, I have to say that the situation is now even worse than we feared. Developments have taken a much more dramatic turn since 2007. The concept of Greater Europe has not materialised. Economic growth has been very weak. Conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa have increased in scale. The migration crisis is pushing Europe towards collapse. Relations between Europe and Russia have soured. A civil war is raging in Ukraine.

In this context, we need to launch an intensive dialogue on the future architecture of Euro-Atlantic security, global stability and regional threats more than ever before. I consider it unacceptable that this dialogue has almost ceased in many spheres. The problem of miscommunication has been widely recognised both in Western Europe and in Russia. The mechanisms that allowed us to promptly settle mutual concerns have been cut off. Moreover, we’ve lost our grasp of the culture of mutual arms control, which we used for a long time as the basis for strengthening mutual trust. Partnership initiatives, which took much time and effort to launch, are expiring one by one. The proposed European security treaty has been put on hold. The idea of a Russia-EU Committee on Foreign Policy and Security, which I discussed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg, has not materialised. We believe that NATO’s policy towards Russia remains unfriendly and generally obdurate.

Speaking bluntly, we are rapidly rolling into a period of a new cold war. Russia has been presented as well-nigh the biggest threat to NATO, or to Europe, America and other countries (and Mr Stoltenberg has just demonstrated that). They show frightening films about Russians starting a nuclear war. I am sometimes confused: is this 2016 or 1962?

But the real threats to this small world are of an absolutely different nature, as I hope you will admit. The term “European security” is now more embracing that it used to be. Forty years ago it concerned above all military and political relations in Europe. But new issues have come to the fore since then, such as sustainable economic development, inequality and poverty, unprecedented migration, new forms of terrorism and regional conflicts, including in Europe. I am referring to Ukraine, the volatile Balkans, and Moldova that is teetering on the brink of a national collapse.

The cross-border threats and challenges, which we for a while believed to have been overcome, have returned with a new strength. The new threats, primarily terrorism and extremism, have lost their abstract form for the majority of people. They have become reality for millions in many countries. As Mr Valls has just mentioned, they have become a daily threat. We can expect an airplane to be blown up or people in a café to be shot every day. These used to be everyday events in the Middle East, but now it’s the same the world over.

We see that economic, social and military challenges have become mutually complementary. But we continue to act randomly, inconsistently, and in many cases exclusively in our own national interests. Or a scapegoat is appointed in an arbitrary manner.

I am offering you five theses on security as such.

First, the economy.

We have approached a change in paradigm in international economic relations. The traditional schemes are no longer effective. Political expediency is taking priority over simple and clear economic reason. The code of conduct is revised ad hoc to suit a specific problem or task or is bluntly ignored. I’ll just point out how the International Monetary Fund adjusted its fundamental rules on lending to countries with overdue sovereign debt when the issue concerned Ukraine’s sovereign debt to Russia.

Talks on creating economic mega-blocs could result in the erosion of the system of global economic rules.

Globalisation, which was a desired objective, has to a certain extent played a cruel joke on us. I personally talked about this with my colleagues at the G8 meetings when everyone needed them. But times change rapidly. Even a minor economic shift in one country now hits whole markets and countries almost immediately. And global regulation mechanisms cannot effectively balance national interests.

The energy market remains extremely unstable. Its volatility has affected both importers and exporters.

We regret that the practice of unilateral economic pressure in the form of sanctions is gaining momentum. Decisions are taken arbitrarily and at times in violation of international law. This is undermining the operating foundations of international economic organisations, including the World Trade Organisation. We have always said, I have always said that sanctions hit not only those against whom they are imposed but also those who use them as an instrument of pressure. How many joint initiatives have been suspended because of sanctions! I have just met with German businessmen and we discussed this issue. Have we properly calculated not only the direct but also the indirect costs for European and Russian business? Are our differences really so deep, or are they not worth it? All of you here in this audience – do you really need this?

This is a road to nowhere. Everyone will suffer, mark my words. It is vitally important that we join forces to strengthen a new global system that can combine the principles of effectiveness and fairness, market openness and social protection.

Second, the crisis of the global economic development model is creating conditions for a variety of conflicts, including regional conflicts.

European politicians thought that the creation of the so-called belt of friendly countries on the outer border of the EU would reliably guarantee security. But what are the results of this policy? What you have is not a belt of friendly countries, but an exclusion zone with local conflicts and economic trouble both on the eastern borders (Ukraine and Moldova) and on the southern borders (the Middle East and North Africa, Libya and Syria).

The result is that these regions have become a common headache for all of us.

The Normandy format has helped us launch negotiations on Ukraine. We believe that there are no better instruments for a peaceful settlement than the Minsk Agreements.

We welcome France’s balanced and constructive stance on Ukraine and on all other acute international issues. I fully agree with Mr Valls that the Russian-French dialogue never stopped, and that it has produced concrete results.

It is true that all sides must comply with the Minsk Agreements. But implementation primarily depends on Kiev. Why them? Not because we are trying to shift responsibility, but because it’s their time.

The situation is very unstable, despite progress made in a number of areas (heavy weaponry withdrawal, the OSCE mission and other issues).

What is Russia’s biggest concern?

First and most important, a comprehensive ceasefire is not being observed in southeastern Ukraine. Shooting is routinely reported at the line of contact, which should not be happening. And we must send a clear signal to all the parties involved, in this regard.

Second, amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution have not been approved to this day, although this should have been done by the end of 2015. And the law on a special status for Donbass has not been implemented.

Instead of coordinating specific decentralisation parameters with the regions, and this is the crucial issue, Ukraine has adopted so-called “transitional provisions,” even though the above requirements were put in black and white in the Minsk Agreements.

Third, Kiev continues to insist that local elections be based on a new Ukrainian law. Furthermore, Kiev has not implemented its commitment on a broad amnesty that should embrace all those who were involved in the developments in Ukraine in 2014-2015. Without being amnestied, these people will be unable to participate in elections, which will make any election results questionable. The OSCE will not endorse this.

As I said, the Minsk Agreements must be implemented in full and this is Russia’s stance on the issue. At the same time, being reasonable people open to discussing various ideas, including a compromise, we, for instance, accepted the initiative of Mr Steinmeier on the temporary application of the law on special status as soon as the election campaign begins. After the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights recognises the election results, this law must be applied permanently. But there’s still no progress here, despite the compromise suggested.

Of course, the humanitarian situation is extremely alarming. The economy of southeastern Ukraine is deteriorating, that part of Ukraine is blockaded, and the German Chancellor’s initiative on the restoration of the banking system in the region there has been rejected. Tens of thousands of people are living on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Oddly, Russia seems to be more concerned about this than Ukraine, why is this so? We have been sending and will have to continue sending humanitarian convoys to southeastern Ukraine.

I must say that Russia has shown and will continue to show reasonable flexibility in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements where this doesn’t contradict their essence. But we can’t do what is not in our competence. That is, we cannot implement the political and legal obligations of the Kiev government. This is under the direct authority of the President, the Government and the Parliament of Ukraine. But unfortunately, it appears that they don’t have the will or a desire to do it. I think this has become obvious to everyone.

As for Syria, we have been working and will continue to work to implement joint peace initiatives. This is a difficult path, but there is no alternative to an interethnic and interreligious dialogue. We must preserve Syria as a union state and prevent its dissolution for denominational reasons. The world will not survive another Libya, Yemen or Afghanistan. The consequences of this scenario will be catastrophic for the Middle East. The work of the International Syria Support Group gives us a certain hope. They gathered here the day before yesterday and coordinated a list of practical measures aimed at implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians and outlining the conditions for a ceasefire, except for terrorist groups, of course. The implementation of these measures is to be led by Russia and the United States. I would like to emphasise that the daily work of the Russian and American militaries is the key here. I’m talking about regular work without the need to seek incidental contacts, day-to-day work, everyday work.

Of course, there should be no preliminary conditions to start the talks on the settlement between the Syrian government and opposition, and there is no need to impend anyone with a land military operation.

Third, we sincerely believe that if we fail to normalise the situation in Syria and other conflict areas, terrorism will become a new form of war that will spread around the world. It will not be just a new form of war but a method of settling ethnic and religious conflict, and a form of quasi-state governance. Imagine a group of countries that are governed by terrorists through terrorism. Is this the 21st century?

It is common knowledge that terrorism is not a problem within individual countries. Russia first raised this alarm two decades ago. We tried to convince our partners that the core causes were not just ethnic or religious differences. Take ISIS, whose ideology is not based on Islamic values but on a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy. Terrorism is civilisation’s problem. It’s either us or them, and it’s time for everyone to realise this. There are no nuances or undertones, no justifications for terrorist actions, no dividing terrorists into ours or theirs, into moderate or extremist.

The destruction of the Russian plane over Sinai, the terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Yemen and other countries, the grisly executions of hostages, thousands of victims, and endless other threats are evidence that international terrorism defies state borders. Terrorists and extremists are trying to spread their influence not only throughout the Middle East and North Africa but also to the whole of Central Asia. Unfortunately, they have so far been successful, mostly because we are unable to set our differences aside and to really join forces against them. Even cooperation at the security services level has been curtailed. And this is ridiculous, like we don’t want to work with you. Daesh should be grateful to my colleagues, the leaders of the Western countries who have suspended this cooperation.

Before coming to this conference, I read much material, including some by Western experts. Even those who don’t think positively about Russia admit that, despite our differences, the “anti-terrorist formula” will not be effective without Russia. On the other hand, they sometimes frame this conclusion in an overall correct, but slightly different way, saying that a weak Russia is even more dangerous than a strong Russia.

Fourth, regional conflicts and terrorism are closely related to the unprecedentedly large issue of uncontrolled migration. This could be described as a great new transmigration of peoples and the culmination of the numerous problems of modern global development. It has affected not only Western Europe but also Russia. The inflow of migrants from Syria to Russia is not very large, but the inflow of migrants from Ukraine has become a serious problem. Over a million Ukrainian refugees have entered Russia over the past 18 months.

Wars and related deprivations, inequality, low standards of living, violence, and fanaticism force people to flee their homes. Unsuccessful attempts to spread Western models of democracy to a social environment that is not suited for this have resulted in the demise of entire states and have turned huge territories into zones of hostility. I remember how my colleagues once rejoiced at the so-called Arab Spring. I literally witnessed it. But has modern democracy taken root in these countries? Looks like it has, but in the form of ISIS.

Human capital is degenerating in the countries the refugees are leaving. And these countries’ development prospects have taken a downward turn. The ongoing migration crisis is rapidly acquiring the features of a humanitarian catastrophe, at least in some parts of Europe. Social problems are growing too, along with mutual intolerance and xenophobia. Not to mention the fact that hundreds and thousands of extremists enter Europe under the guise of being refugees. Other migrants are people of an absolutely different culture who only want to receive monetary benefits without doing anything to earn them. This poses a very real danger to the common economic space. The next targets will be the cultural space and even the European identity. We watch with regret how invaluable mechanisms, which Russia also needs, are being destroyed. I am referring to the actual collapse of the Schengen zone.

For our part, we are willing to do our best to help address the migration issue, including by contributing to efforts to normalise the situation in the conflict regions from which the majority of refugees come, Syria among them.

And fifth, let’s be as honest as possible. The majority of these challenges did not develop yesterday. And they were definitely not invented in Russia. Yet we haven’t learned to react to these challenges properly or even proactively. This is why the bulk of resources go into dealing with the consequences, often without identifying the root cause. Or we invest our energy not in fighting the real evil, but in deterring our neighbours, and this problem has just been voiced here The West continues to actively use this deterrence doctrine against Russia. The fallacy of this approach is that we will still be debating the same issues in 10 and even 20 years. Provided there will be anything to debate about, of course, as discussions are not on the agenda of the Great Caliphate.

Opinions on the prospects for cooperation with Russia differ. Opinions also differ in Russia. But can we unite in order to stand up against the challenges I mentioned above? Yes, I am confident that we can. Yesterday we witnessed a perfect example in the area of religion. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope of the Catholic Church Francis met in Cuba following hundreds of years when the two churches did not communicate. Of course, restoring trust is a challenging task. It’s difficult to say how long it would take. But it is necessary to launch this process. And this must be done without any preliminary conditions. Either all of us need to do this or none of us. In the latter case, there will be no cooperation.

We often differ in our assessments of the events that took place over the past two years. However, I want to emphasise that they don’t differ as much as they did 40 years ago when we signed the Final Helsinki Act and when Europe was literally divided by The Wall. When old phobias prevailed, we were deadlocked. When we managed to join forces, we succeeded. There is much evidence to support this. We managed to agree on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons, which was a breakthrough achievement. We have worked out a compromise solution regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. We have convinced all sides in the Syrian conflict to sit down at the negotiating table in Geneva. We have coordinated actions against pirates. And the Climate Change Conference was held in Paris last year. We should replicate these positive outcomes.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The current architecture of European security, which was built on the ruins of World War II, allowed us to avoid global conflicts for more than 70 years. The reason for this was that this architecture was built on principles that were clear to everyone at that time, primarily the undeniable value of human life. We paid a high price for these values. But our shared tragedy forced us to rise above our political and ideological differences in the name of peace. It’s true that this security system has its issues and that it sometimes malfunctions. But do we need one more, third global tragedy to understand that what we need is cooperation rather than confrontation?

I’d like to quote from John F. Kennedy, who used very simple but the most appropriate words, “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.” In the early 1960s the world stood at the door of a nuclear apocalypse, but the two rivalling powers found the courage to admit that no political confrontation was worth the human lives.

I believe that we have become wiser and more experienced and more responsible. And we are not divided by ideological phantoms and stereotypes. I believe that the challenges we are facing today will not lead to conflict but rather will encourage us to come together in a fair and equal union that will allow us to maintain peace for another 70 years, at least.

Thank you.

Excerpts from replies to questions by journalists

Question: My name is Mingus Campbell, I am from the United Kingdom. My question is addressed to Prime Minister Medvedev. Is it accepted in Russia that increased influence in Syria brings with it responsibility for all of the citizens of Syria? And if that is so, how has that responsibility been exercised in respect of the citizens of Aleppo who are now fleeing in such numbers?

Dmitry Medvedev: Thank you. I will continue answering questions concerning Syria, including the situation in Aleppo, but not limited to that.

I think a large part of the people present here have never been to Syria, whereas I have been there. I made an official visit there when Syria was a quiet, peaceful, secular nation, where life was stable and balanced for everybody: the Sunnis and the Shiites, the Druze, Alawites and Christians.

Almost six years have passed since then. Today we see Syria that is torn by a civil war. Let us ask a question: who is to blame for that? Is it al-Assad alone? It is absolutely evident that without a certain external influence Syria could have gone on with its life. But I remember those talks, those conversations with my partners, both European and American, who kept on telling me the same thing over and over: al-Assad is no good, he should step down, and then peace and prosperity will reign there. And what has came of it? It resulted in a civil war.

This is the reason I cannot but agree with my colleague, Prime Minister Valls, in that we must join efforts to solve this issue, but we must work effectively, not just watch as events unfold there, not just watch one party attack another; not divide the warring parties into those who are on our side and adversaries, but instead sit them all down at the negotiating table, except those who we have agreed to treat as real terrorists. We know who they are.

Russia is not pursuing any special goals there except the ones that have been declared. We are defending our national interests because a large number of militants fighting there came from Russia and neighbouring countries, and they can come back to wage terrorist attacks. They must stay there…

This does not apply to civilians in any way. Unlike most of the countries present in the region, we have been helping civilians. Nobody has any proof that we have been bombing civilian targets there, even though they keep on talking about it, about wrong targets and so forth. They do not share information. I have just said this from the stand – the military must keep in constant contact. They should call each other a dozen times a day. Otherwise there will always be skirmishes and conflicts. And this is our mission. We are ready for such cooperation. I expect that we will see some positive development from the dialogue we had here in terms of both achieving a ceasefire in Syria and the humanitarian issues. It is crucial that we should agree on key points, because otherwise, and I think it is no secret for anyone, Syria will split into separate parts, the way it happened to Libya and the way it is in fact happening with a number of other nations in the region. What does that entail? It poses a threat of the conflict becoming permanent. The civil war will go on, Daesh or its successors will always be there, while we will engage in arguments as we try to figure out which of them is good and which is bad, who should receive our support and who shouldn’t. We have a common enemy, and that it the premise we should start with.

Now I would like to come back to the topic of Ukraine. I cannot assess the past developments in Ukraine; the Russian leadership has already done this a number of times, including myself. I will answer the part of the question regarding the air crash investigation. Obviously, the Russian Federation is no less interested in an unbiased investigation than the countries whose citizens lost their lives in the crash. It is indeed an enormous tragedy. But even the tone of the question implies that the person asking it has already decided who is responsible, who should bear the legal responsibility, no investigation is needed, certain justice committees should be set up instead and certain legal procedures followed. But this is not the way it is done. This should be a regular comprehensive investigation that would cover all the relevant aspects. This is the first point. And second, this is unfortunately not the first case in the world of this kind. Such tragedies have never been dealt with by criminal courts or other similar agencies. These are issues of a different order. And this is what we have to agree on. Russia is ready to provide any information to contribute to a quality investigation.

Featured image: Russia’s PM Dimitri Medvedev

transcript of the PM interview with Euro News. Emphasis by GR

Syria

Isabelle Kumar: Many thanks for being with us on The Global Conversation. The issue of Syria is dominating the international agenda. But we feel we could be reaching the turning point yet it’s unclear which way it is going to go. What do you think?

Dmitri Medvedev: You know, as I was heading to this conference, I had a feeling that the situation in this area is very complex and challenging because we have yet to come to an agreement with our colleagues and partners on key issues, including the creation of a possible coalition and military cooperation.

All interactions in this respect have been episodic so far. That said, I note that here, in Munich, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with Secretary of State John Kerry, and other colleagues acting in various capacities later joined them. They agreed on what should be done in the short run. For this reason, I’m cautiously optimistic about the prospects for cooperation on this issue. Let me emphasise that this cooperation is critical, because unless we come together on this issue, there will be no end to the war in Syria, people will keep dying, the massive influx of refugees to Europe will continue, and Europe will have to deal with major challenges. Most importantly, we will be unable to overcome terrorism, which is a threat to the entire modern civilisation.

Isabelle Kumar: What precise military actions and other, in that case, is Russia prepared to take to help in this de-escalation of the conflict in Syria?

Dmitri Medvedev: Let me remind you the reasons behind Russia’s involvement in Syria. The first reason that compelled Russia to take part in this campaign is the protection of national interests. There are many fighters in Syria who can go to Russia at any time and commit terrorist attacks there. There are thousands of them in Syria.

Second, there is a legal foundation in the form of the request by President al-Assad. We will therefore take these two factors into account in our military decisions and, obviously, the developments in the situation. What matters most at this point is to agree on launching the talks between all the parties to the Syrian conflict. Another important thing is to coordinate a list of terrorist groups, since this issue has been a matter of endless debates on who’s good and who’s bad. This is the first point I wanted to make.

My second point is the following. I learned that Secretary of State John Kerry said that if Russia and Iran do not help, the US will be ready to join other countries in carrying out a ground operation. These are futile words, he should not have said that for a simple reason: if all he wants is a protracted war, he can carry out ground operations and anything else. But don’t try to frighten anyone. Agreements should be reached along the same lines as Mr Kerry’s conversations with Mr Lavrov, instead of saying that if something goes wrong, other Arab countries and the US will carry out a ground operation.

I’ve answered this question only recently. But let me reiterate that no one is interested in a new war, and a ground operation is a full-fledged, long war. We must bear this in mind.

“We want sound, advanced relations both with the United States and the European Union”

Assad’s future

Isabelle Kumar: Clearly, one of the key issues is the future of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Will Russia continue to support him at this crucial moment in time?

Dmitri Medvedev: Russia does not support President al-Assad personally, but maintains friendly relations with Syria as a country. These ties were built not under Bashar al-Assad, but back when his father, Hafez al-Assad, became president. This is my first point in this respect.

Second, we have never said that this is the main issue for us in this process. We simply believe that there is currently no other legitimate authority in Syria apart from Bashar al-Assad. He is the incumbent president, whether anyone likes it or not. Taking him out of this equation would lead to chaos. We have seen that on numerous occasions in the Middle East, when countries simply fell apart, as it happened with Libya, for example.

It is for that reason that he should take part in all the procedures and processes, but it should be up to the Syrian people to decide his destiny.

Syria’s future

Isabelle Kumar: Are you therefore already working on ideas of political transition now in Syria?

Dmitri Medvedev: I don’t think that we should go into too much detail on these issues. I’m talking about Russia, the European Union and the United States. We should focus on facilitating the launch of this process. We must make sure that everyone sits down at the negotiating table, in fact, make them talk to each other. Let’s be honest and recognise that it will be anything but simple given the parties involved. On one side, you have President al-Assad, supported by a part of society and the military, and, on the other side, the other part of society, often representing different confessions, people who don’t like al-Assad but have to sit with him at the same negotiating table. Nevertheless, they need to come to an agreement for the sake of keeping Syria united.

Ukraine crisis

Isabelle Kumar: I’d like now to switch focus and look at the conflict in Ukraine. We talk of the frozen conflict there with, it appears, renewed fighting in the east. What can Russia do to bring about the thaw in that conflict, to bring an end to this conflict?

Dmitri Medvedev: Well, understandably, the answer here is somewhat easier than in Syria’s case. It is not just because this conflict is not as brutal, but because there is a clear understanding of how to move forward – by implementing the Minsk Agreements.

They should be implemented fully and in their entirety by all the parties. In fact, Russia calls on all the parties to do so, both those in power in the southeast, and the Kiev authorities. It is not a matter of Russia having some disagreements with Kiev or mutual dislike.

It would be fair to say that most of the provisions that were the responsibility of southeast Ukraine have been fulfilled. Most importantly, hostilities have ceased almost completely. Unfortunately, some action takes place from time to time, but not often. Finding political and legal solutions in keeping with the Minsk Agreements has now become vital. Whose responsibility is it? Of course, it is Ukraine’s responsibility. If Ukraine regards the southeast as part of its territory, it is within the jurisdiction, competence and authority of the President, Parliament and Government of Ukraine.

Isabelle Kumar: If you meet President Poroshenko here, at the Munich security conference, what will you say to him?

Dmitri Medvedev: I haven’t seen him and, to be honest, I haven’t missed him. President Poroshenko is in contact with President Putin. There is no doubt that the main thing my colleagues should undertake is to do everything it takes to implement the Minsk Agreements. It would benefit them, as well as the Ukrainian state, which, no matter what anyone says, is a close, neighbouring country for Russia.

Crimea

Isabelle Kumar: Obviously, one of the major sticking points in this, for Ukraine, but also for the international community, is Crimea. Is the future of Crimea up for negotiation?

Dmitri Medvedev: No, there is no such issue for Russia. This issue was settled once and for all. Crimea is part of Russia. A referendum was held there, we amended the constitution. The Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are part of the Russian Federation.

Russia’s relations with the world

Isabelle Kumar: So the conflict in Syria, the situation in Ukraine has contributed to a real degradation of relations with Russia, with the EU and the US. Do you think a reset is possible?

Dmitri Medvedev: The question is how and for whose sake. If something is to be reset, it should be done on a fundamentally different basis. What kind of basis? Equitable, fair, solid basis for relations, considering that Russia is not the only nation that needs this – the European Union and the United States need it as well. We want sound, advanced relations both with the United States and the European Union.

The European Union is our most important trade partner, a group of countries located on the same continent as us, so we are bound by our shared European identity, history and values. These continuing tensions aren’t doing us any good. But if we are told that they no longer want us around, of course, the first steps towards reconciliation should be taken by those who initiated the alienation. As for us, we are ready to discuss any issues.

Russia’s economy

Isabelle Kumar: Well, one of the repercussions of the souring of relations has been the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia, which are hitting hard. How much of a priority is it for your government to get those sanctions lifted?

Dmitri Medvedev: They told us we were the bad guys and had to be punished. And then they made some calculations and began to weep: it turns out that for some reason it was hitting their own business.

We had a trade turnover with the European Union at 450 billion euros. It was 450 billion! Now it is down to 217 billion euros. Why don’t they ask the people in the EU who are employed by the various companies that used to make products for Russia – how do they like all of this?

Again, we are not the ones who started this, so it is not up to us to undo it. They have always been trying to intimidate us with some sanctions, which were introduced even in the Soviet period, many times. It never brought them anything but lost profits. What is happening now is no different. They will have to have the courage to say, guys, we’ll just scrap all this from day X, and could you please reciprocate by lifting your response measures as well. That would be the right approach.

Isabelle Kumar: So how are ordinary Russians feeling this economic crisis? Because the sanctions are contributing towards this, the falling oil prices are also contributing to this. What’s it like for ordinary Russians?

Dmitri Medvedev: Indeed, we aren’t in the best economic situation right now, with the dramatic fall in oil prices probably contributing the most to the overall state of the economy, to the decline in revenues. This is something we haven’t seen for 17 years. The current prices are comparable to those in 1998. Unfortunately, our budget remains very dependent on oil prices. Although the structure of revenues has been improving, in terms of the share of oil and other sources, but yes, it remains commodity-dependent to a great extent. This could not but affect the incomes and the general standing of our people with their jobs and their real incomes.

The sanctions have had some effect as well. This is obvious, since some of our companies, for example, lost the financing they used to have from European banks, which means they cannot grow, some of them anyway. Therefore, in this sense, the economic situation is not the easiest. But there is also a positive effect. The economy is healing, it is becoming less dependent on oil, and we have an opportunity to develop our own industry and agriculture.

Perhaps one of the advantages of these sanctions and our response measures is that we started concentrating harder on domestic agriculture, so, to a large extent, we are now satisfying our demand for food, while wheat, for example, is now exported in large quantities. In this sense, the sanctions have helped. But they probably didn’t help farmers in the European Union.

Isabelle Kumar: I was asking about the ordinary Russians and how this was affecting them. And we hear of possible social unrest as their lives become more and more difficult in Russia. Is that something you are concerned about?

Dmitri Medvedev: Of course, the government must first of all think about the social impact of economic changes and the economic situation. Frankly, we have been compelled to cut budget spending in many areas, but we never touched social spending, or the public sector wages and benefits.

Moreover, we even indexed pensions last year, and this year, too, maybe not completely, but we did. We will try to continue doing this in the future. That is, the government’s social spending is large, but it is inviolable. In this sense, we will try to do everything towards Russian citizens’ social wellbeing, to keep them as comfortable as possible under these conditions. It is truly a priority for the government.

Russia’s human rights record

Isabelle Kumar: If we take an international perspective once again, a black mark on Russia’s reputation is the issue of human rights and freedom of speech, which Russia seems to continually backslide on. Why is that?

Dmitri Medvedev: To be frank, we’ve always differed in our views on the situation with the freedom of expression and the media in Russia. We’ve often been criticised and we are still coming under criticism. We have our own position on the issue. Perhaps in Russia, the media are somewhat different, for example, from the European media.

There are historical differences and there are growth issues. I rarely watch TV or read newspapers in print and I receive virtually all of my information from the Internet. And over half of Russia’s population does the same. As you know, on the Internet, there is no regulation in this sense. All points of view are represented there, including, to put it bluntly, even extremist ones. So I believe it’s not serious to think that some people have no access to different kinds of information in today’s global world.

Litvinenko enquiry

Isabelle Kumar: Yes, but also it seems that dissidents are silenced. In Britain, as you know, there has been – the results of the inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which the inquiry said – it pointed the finger at President Vladimir Putin, saying that it was likely that he ordered that murder. Will you be pursuing the British Government on this? There was talk of you suing the British Government over this inquiry.

Dmitri Medvedev: You’ve mentioned some report by some retired judge, in which practically every paragraph and each section opens with the word “probably”. What is there to comment on? What is regrettable about this whole story is that the British Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary comment on a report that abounds in words like “probably”.

This is reminiscent of a witch-hunt. When all is said and done, let it be on the conscience of the commentators. As for any legal action, this is simply ridiculous. We don’t need this and the Russian Federation will never sue any country over some foolish fabrications or funny films.

Highlights

Isabelle Kumar: Finally, Mr Prime Minister, you’ve held the post of prime minister and also held the presidency, so you’ve got an overview, a full perspective of the issues we’ve been talking about, but if I were to ask you about one of the highlights of the your time in power, could you say what that’s been?

Dmitri Medvedev: Well, there’ve been plenty. Both these posts are very serious and challenging. These eight years of my life – and it has been almost eight years – you know, it’s this constant drive. As for events, there have been plenty, both in Russia – very good ones for me personally, notable, major, and sometime tragic events, like the ones we’ve been talking about now, and international events.

After all, we have not only argued and quarrelled. We’ve also accomplished a thing or two. For example, at some point we agreed on a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. That was not bad at all. The document was signed. It is in force. It is being implemented and therefore we can work together and agree on different things. There have been contacts with my colleagues, including here in Germany, as well as in other European countries. We have dealt with a lot of issues. All of this is remarkable and exciting. Maybe one day I’ll talk about this in detail. For the time being I continue working and this work is interesting.

Prime Minister, many thanks for joining us.

Southwestern Ontario is the historic home of Canadian tomato growers. The bulk of the crop goes to processing, and since 1909 the dominant corporation had been H. J. Heinz, a food giant based in Pittsburgh. But in 2013 the Heinz Corporation was bought by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (26%) and 3G Capital (51%), based in Brazil. It was soon announced that they were planning to close their plant in Leamington. The story has been a snapshot of what has happened to the manufacturing industry in Ontario following the free trade agreements with the United States.

In 1988 Canadians were informed that their government, headed by Brian Mulroney, had been negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S. government. The push for this had come from organizations representing big business and finance on both sides of the border. The Action Canada Network was formed, representing many democratic organizations who opposed the free trade agreement with the United States. Along with many Canadian political economists, they warned that given the reality of Canada’s branch-plant economy, any free trade agreement would likely lead to many plants closing and their operations moved back to the United States. But Canada’s political leadership pushed through the “New Economic Constitution of North America,” as U.S. President Ronald Reagan termed it. Over the next 25 years Ontario communities saw factory after factory shut down. The food industry was not immune to this development.

Neoliberalism and the “Free Trade Agenda”

The “free trade agenda” is part of the new political economy commonly known as neoliberalism, a return to the open free market system that existed before the Great Depression and the social democratic governments that dominated the political agenda for thirty years following World War II. The liberal package included the repeal of ‘populist’ national policies which were aimed at promoting domestic manufacturing, the privatization of state owned enterprises, deregulation of the economy, reversing legislation which protected workers’ rights and trade unions, cuts to social programs and the repeal of progressive tax systems designed to promote greater equality.

The goal of the organizations representing the corporate sector was to increase their rate of profit. They wanted the right to produce anywhere in the world, sell their products anywhere, and not be subject to any government controls on the movement of their products or capital. In more recent years, with the world economy characterized by overproduction, excess capacity and limited profitable investment opportunities, the corporate sector has sought to open investment opportunities in all areas of the public sector, including health, education, social services, social housing and government services.

Free Trade Comes to Leamington, Ontario

In 2013 the new owners of Heinz announced that they were going to shut down the plant in Leamington. 3G Capital had a reputation for taking over companies, laying off many workers, and putting top priority on raising the profit ratio. Warren Buffett, the other major partner in the new ownership, said that the Canadian plant was ‘not efficient’: it relied on fresh tomatoes grown in Canada, bypassing cheaper tomato paste that could be imported from producers in Mexico and elsewhere.

Was there an alternative? Sam Diab, the plant manager at the Leamington operation, found several investors in the Toronto area and put forth a plan to keep the plant open and operating. Changes had to be made to continue production under the free trade model.

(1) There would be a major downsizing in the plant’s operation. The regular work force would be initially reduced from 740 to 250. The workers, primarily women, were represented by a trade union, United Food and Commercial Workers. Production workers who kept their jobs would see their hourly wages reduced from $25 to $16. The union accepted the changes as there was no alternative.

(2) The business in its new form survived because of a regulation under the Canadian Agricultural Products Act. This specified that tomato juice sold in Canada must be made from fresh tomatoes and not paste. Heinz had 50% of the Canadian tomato juice market and did not want to give this up. They negotiated a five year contract with the new owners, now known as Highbury Canco. Business interests complained that this type of “trade distorting regulation” was supposed to be eliminated under the terms of the existing free trade agreements. Such regulations will likely be eliminated if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement is ratified.

(3) The number of tomato growers has declined since the plant changed ownership. In 2013 Heinz had contracts with 119 tomato growers; that was down to only 10 in 2015. The tonnage of tomatoes grown in this area of Ontario declined from 555,092 in 2012 to 432,175 in 2015. There remain two other tomato and vegetable processor in the region, ConAgra Foods, a U.S. food giant in Dresden, and Canadian-owned Sun-Brite Foods which is located near Leamington. Vegetables are also processed in Quebec by Bonduelle North America, a French corporation.

(4) Highbury Canco wants to expand the company’s production by introducing a new class of tomatoes, to be called “industrial paste.” They argue that this could add an additional 250,000 tons of tomatoes and 25 – 30 more growers. Farmers who lost their contracts have had to switch to corn-soybean production, with lower returns. Of course, tomatoes in this new fourth class would bring farmers less money, as the industrial paste would be sold bulk to other processors at a discount. Regular tomato paste in 2014 brought farmers $110 per ton. The company argues that the new class would bring farmers at least $95 per ton, the paste price in 2013.

(5) Standing in the way of total free trade in this case would be the Ontario marketing boards. The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission has not approved the introduction of a new fourth class of industrial paste tomatoes. Neither has the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers. They do not have the economic power of the supply management marketing boards (like milk, poultry and eggs), but as marketing agents they do have considerable influence. They are there to provide some power for farmers when negotiating with agribusiness. Corporate interests, and their liberal academic supporters, expect that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will eventually put an end to the influence of farmer-controlled marketing boards.

(6) In order to try to keep businesses in Canada, governments have increasingly offered them subsidies. Leamington granted Highbury Canco subsidized municipal water and re-assessed the value of the plant, cutting their property taxes in half. The city council abolished all development charges for building construction. The provincial government “invested” $2.5-million in Highbury Canco to help it expand production lines. Such practices have become a normal part of business under free trade. Most people are aware of the huge subsidies that are given to automobile corporations.

What is it like to work in a manufacturing corporation operating under the new free trade, free market regime? Of course workers were not happy when their wages were cut as at Leamington. But they lined up to work at the new plant as there were very limited alternatives.

We can get an idea by looking at the comments posted by workers at the Kraft Heinz plant, as reported at www.glassdoor.ca:

• “Previous company was good to work for but not 3G.”
• “Deep cost cutting.”
• “New 3G culture . . . very focused on the bottom line.”
• “Was great place to work . . . until 3G/Heinz merger.”
• “Daily grind, week after week.”
• “Great people and horrible Senior Management.”
• “Go back to Brazil, please.”

Conclusion

The experience of the tomato industry in Southwest Ontario is a case study of manufacturing in Canada under the new free trade regime. As the democratic opposition warned, the free trade regime has resulted in a major loss of manufacturing plants and good jobs in Canada. It is widely expected that the new Trans-Pacific Partnership will only make matters worse.

There is also a new factor on the horizon: climate change. As weather systems become more unstable and destructive, a crisis is expected to develop in the production and distribution of food. There will be greater pressure on Canada to expand our own production of food, especially fruits and vegetables. It is likely that we will need to move to a production system similar to that used during World War II, with significant government intervention. This would be the opposite of the free trade model. A growing crisis will provoke a new political struggle. •

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and author. This article first appeared on his blog johnwwarnock.blogspot.ca.

Peace discussions tend to contain within them the seeds of the next conflict.  Treaties, agreements and pacts to end war are made to reassure combating parties that they will, at some point, have annother crack at each other.  Even as they take place, participating sides look for gains, seek to edge others into corners, and gain merciful advantages.

That was the nature of talks between Russia and the US held on Friday.  Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the sides had “agreed to implement a nationwide cessation of hostilities in a week’s time.”  Not only did Kerry concede this to be “ambitious,” the very fact that ISIS and the Nusra Front played no part in such arrangements rendered such discussions idiosyncratic at best.

The Syrian conflict has become the transforming conflict of Middle Eastern politics, with peace talks a mere pretext for more background fighting between false friends and misaligned enemies. Traditional powers, split by sectarian fault lines and ideological differences, promote the idea that the diplomatic round table is becoming more significant by the day. This charade has become even more colourful, with Kerry doing at the Munich Security Conference what he does best for his country: moralise.

The Russian campaign in Syria, he argues, merely serves to embolden ISIS.  “To date,” claimed Kerry on Saturday, “the vast majority, in our opinion, of Russia’s attacks have been against legitimate opposition groups and to adhere to the agreement it made, we think it is critical that Russia’s targeting change.”  That Kerry is still able to identify legitimate moderation amongst any of Syria’s groups shows the accepted lack of wisdom in the White House.

Furthermore, the Russians are said to be rather unclean about it all. (US smart weapons tend to be, goes the suggestion, more hygienic and discriminating in killing, capable of understanding good militants from bad.) The criticisms, coming from Amnesty International, are one thing. Packaged for the righteousness of Coalition consumption, on the other hand, poses another problem.

Instead of adopting the sanctimonious cant that tends to come out in US State Department briefings, the language of elimination in the Russian military argot is unmistakable. All militants against the Assad regime are to be deemed questionable and fair game, terrorists being terrorists and all that.  They are in for a win, bolstering the Assad regime and securing their base in Syria.

Washington’s allies, who tend to treat the stuffed dummy of humanitarianism with open disdain even as they embrace it, are readying for a broader conflict.  Even as Western governments berate Russia for not taking enough of an interest in pummelling Islamic State, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Turkey demonstrate an even clearer lack of interest in doing so.  Vicious as Islamic State forces are, they are at the very least open about their interests on the religious front, holding the Sunni line against Shia interests.

Saudi deployments in the coalition campaign in Syria have, to date, been minimal, with the bulk of its aerial interests focused against crushing the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen.  Their version of humanitarian strikes has served to ruin a country’s infrastructure in an effort to wipe out the Shia foothold.

Turkey, likewise, has shown ambivalence towards ISIS, preferring to keep its own terrorists in check.  Ankara and Islamic State have been running an oil trade for some time, at least according to the Russian defence ministry.  The suggestion on the part of Russian sources is even more personal: that Turkey’s interest in preserving such a trade are largely due to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s relatives, who have direct trade links to the market.

Some aspects of this business dimension have been acknowledged by US Treasury officials and commentators. “When oil is being bought on the Turkish border,” argued Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “it’s highly unlikely that it will be sold anywhere else but Turkey.”

While Russia is accused of bombing good militants (good for receiving Western and Sunni sponsorship), Ankara sanctions bombing raids on Kurdish fighters, one of the few groups who can genuinely claim to have an existential stake in this conflict.  Ankara considers the PYD and its YPG seamless links to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).  This has put the coalition against Islamic State in a curious situation.

The more coordinated effort by Russian and Syrian government forces, bolstered by greater targeting, improved supply, and spates of intense bombing (510 combat sorties between February 4 and 11 alone), have begun to swing the conflict in favour of Assad.

Ankara and Riyadh, officially glaring on the side while Moscow makes inroads, have been mooting the point for some time: a more open deployment of their forces to back their Sunni interests is warranted.  While Riyadh is a less serious contender in this, Turkey has suggested the point.  “If there is a strategy (against the Islamic State jihadist group),” posed Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, “then Turkey and Saudi Arabia could enter into a ground operation.”  Syria, already an animal pen of vicious competitors, risks becoming ever noisier.

As the bloodbath continues its drenching woes, the next phase of the conflict will demonstrate a continuing rule of history: as the diplomats move their ineffectual jaws, the military personnel will continue doing what they do best. Meanwhile, Kerry would best be reminded of his own words. “If people who want to be part of the conversation are being bombed, we’re not going to have much of a process.”

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

Foreign and Expatriates Ministry voiced the government’s strong condemnation of Turkey’s repeated attacks on the Syrian people and its transgression into the Syrian territory.

“Turkish artillery shelling of Syrian territory constitutes direct support to the armed terrorist organizations,” the Ministry told the UN Secretary General and the Security Council’s Chairman in two letters addressed to both officials.

It was referring to shelling by Turkish artillery based inside Turkish territory of Syrian land targeting Syrian Kurds and Syrian army sites.

The attack was launched on Saturday afternoon and continued on as the Turkish artillery also targeted the civilian populated villages of Maranaz, al-Malkieh, Minnegh, Ein Daqneh and Bazi, according to the letters.

The shelling came in response to the Syrian Arab army’s advance on military fronts in the northern countryside of Aleppo province and in a bid to boost the morale of the armed terrorist organizations, the Ministry clarified.

It went on citing Turkish attacks in more Syrian areas on the same day, saying that 12 pickups with DShK and 14.5 mm machine guns mounted on them had their way from the Turkish land into Syrian territory across Bab al-Salameh border crossing.

The Ministry noted that the pickups were accompanied with 100 gunmen, some of them are believed to be Turkish soldiers and Turkish mercenaries, adding that munitions supply operations into the Syrian Aazaz area continue.

The Turkish attacks, the letters said, were coupled with statements made by the Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu that confirmed Turkey’s blatant intervention in the Syrian affair and the continued Turkish support to Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Jabha al-Shamiya, Ahrar al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations.

These statements, the Ministry said, officially attested to the Turkish regime’s premeditated acts of violating the Security Council’s resolutions related to combating terrorism.

The Ministry referred in its letters to the chiefs of the UN and the Security Council to the “irresponsible” actions of the Turkish regime that caused the recent Geneva intra-Syrian meeting to fail.

The Syrian government expresses strong condemnation of Turkey’s repeated attacks on the Syrian people and its transgression into the Syrian territory, calling these attacks “a gross violation” of the Syrian sovereignty and a flagrant breach of the UN Charter’s objectives and principles, the rules of the international law and the Security Council’s counterterrorism resolutions, the letters said.

Syria, however, stresses that it will maintain its legitimate right to respond to the Turkish crimes and attacks and to claim compensation for the damage caused, the letters added.

The Ministry also conveyed the Syrian government’s call on the Security Council to assume its responsibility to put an end to the Turkish regime’s classified crimes against the Syrian people and its repeated attacks against Syrian territory.

The government also demanded, according to the letters, that the Security Council work to compel the countries backing terrorism, including Turkey, to comply with its relevant resolutions on fighting terrorism and bring them to account for their unlimited support to the terrorist groups.

A senior Iranian air force commander says Iran is prepared to defend Syria’s airspace if Damascus calls for it.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, the commander of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Air Defense Base, made the remarks during an interview with the Tasnim news agency on Sunday.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, the commander of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Air Defense Base

After praising the government and people of the Arab country for their five-year battle against foreign-backed Takfiri terrorism, he stressed that any military presence in Syria without the approval of Damascus would end in nothing but “defeat.”

The remarks were made in the wake of reports that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were preparing to launch joint military operations on Syrian soil.

Instead of contemplating a ground presence in Syria, Esmaili noted, Riyadh should consider stopping atrocities in Yemen where over 8,200 people have been killed and some 16,000 more injured since March 26, 2015.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has confirmed deployment of warplanes to the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, claiming that the move was in line with the so-called fight against Daesh.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has also stated that any decision for the deployment of forces to Syria would follow the will of the US-led coalition.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has also said Ankara and Riyadh could launch a ground operation in Syria “if there is a strategy.”

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are widely believed to be among major sponsors of terrorist groups operating against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The authorities concerned in Sweida, in cooperation with the locals, seized on Sunday a vehicle loaded with large amounts of arms and ammunition in the western countryside of the southern province.

A source at Sweida Governorate told SANA that the vehicle was heading to the terrorist organizations operating in the eastern countryside of the neighboring Daraa province.

The arms and ammunition which were confiscated included 7 Israeli-made anti-tank rocket launchers, 62 shells, 128 RPG shells of different kinds, 43 120 mm mortar rounds, 42 82 mm mortar rounds and 100 23 mm machinegun bullets.

Earlier on Saturday, the authorities, in cooperation with the popular committees, seized hundreds of U.S. and Israeli-made anti-tank mines loaded in a pickup in the western countryside of Sweida. The weapons were bound for the terrorists in eastern al-Badiya (desert).

On January 20th, the authorities in Sweida foiled an operation to smuggle a large quantity of ammunition for medium-sized and heavy weapons from eastern Daraa to terrorist organizations in al-Badiya.

There are three possible scenarios in Syria

Participation of [Saudi] Arab troops  in Syria is not excluded.

A high-ranking officer within the joint operations room in Damascus, which includes Russia, Iran and Syria and Hezbollah said,

“ there are three possible scenarios in Syria:

The first is the [Saudi] Arab ground troops would enter Syria from the Turkish borders, in the area under the so-called “Islamic State” group (ISIS) on the long bordering front from Jarablus to Al-Ra’ee. This can be possible and quickly achievable if a kind of an agreement is reached between Turkey and ISIS. After all, the Jihadist group has to face either the Turkish-Arab forces – that could allow a possible exit – or the Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah forces where there will be no exit”.

The second scenario is through the Jordanian borders East of Syria up to Raqqa. A longer road but would allow Saudi Arabia to bring its logistic and armoured support to push all the way to the ISIS-controlled land. In both scenarios, these troops, Arabs or Turkish-Arabs, would not clash or contact or even walk into the Russia-Damascus and allies military operational stage.

The third scenario is that the Saudi are boosting the moral of the Jihadist by advertising a possible intervention so these don’t surrender easily and hold the ground for as long as possible.

The source said:

“Any scenario is linked to the will of the United States to be engaged in a war in Syria. This is exactly what the Saudi officials said. The U.S. is sending the Awacs aircraft because any U.S direct intervention on the ground is totally excluded. This could be the U.S. contribution, along the diplomatic effort in Geneva. Never the less, we build our military reaction based on the strong possibility that the Arab ground troops are most likely to invade Syria. These forces, under the title of defeating ISIS, won’t reach Raqqa overnight. Logistic support and troops movement from Jordan into Syria require between 3 to 4 months to be completed. These forces, in this case, are expected to advance from Jordan, into al-Badiyah and continue up north toward Raqqa, the northern Syrian city, as a possible scenario. Any potential contact with the Syrian forces could lead to a larger war”.

We do not exclude the fact that Saudi Special Forces could act behind ISIS lines to guide airtrikes or carry small scale attacks. None the less, these forces cannot contribute to defeat ISIS but in directing specific targets. Any attack that could weaken ISIS is considered to our advantage. The U.S. led coalition can bomb ISIS any time but no ground troops would be welcome. Moreover, no jet is allowed to enter the Syrian space without prior coordination with Russia, otherwise it will be considered as a potential target. This is also another fact to consider. Therefore, no one is willing to see a large scale war, mainly President Obama who has avoided to be entangled in the Syrian war for the last two years.

Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev said,

“all parties should sit down at the negotiating table instead of causing an outbreak of a new world war”, rumbling the drum of war in Syria. The Russian warning came after the confirmation of a spokesman for the Saudi Defense minister Ahmad Asiri “the Saudi Kingdom has announced the establishment of the new Islamist alliance to fight terrorism and is ready to carry out air and ground operations within the international coalition led by the United States in Syria.”

The aim of the [Saudi] Arab forces is to divide Syria is two parts: “Gharbistan” (western) and “Sharqistan”(Eastern) similar to what happened in Berlin after World War II.

In the first part, the Syrian army will continue fighting al-Qaeda and its allies with the support of Russia.

While in the second part, the [Saudi] Arabs would establish their forces to impose a political change and could destabilise the regime. In the meantime, the regime forces are at 60km from Raqqa, while, Turkey is at 180 km from ISIS main city. Therefore, if the idea to defeat ISIS is genuine, the U.S led coalition doesn’t need to intervene and walk all this distance from Turkey or Jordan to Raqqa. However, The race to Raqqa is declared, with the possibility or without the possibility of an [Saudi] Arab-Turkish intervention.

According to the source

“the gates of hell will be open in the next 3 months in Syria against al-Qaeda and its allies and also against ISIS. As agreed in Geneva between Russia and the United States, any cease-fire shall not include Jihadists and their allies. If Syrian opposition groups do not disengage from al-Qaeda, they will be considered legitimate targets because they become united as one group and will be dealt with accordingly”.

Al-Qaeda in Syria, known as Jabhat al-Nusra, is part of Jaish al-fateh, a coalition of many Syrian groups operating in northern Syria. Al-Qaeda and Jihadist movements are sending reinforcement to northern Aleppo in the last 48 hours, but used to maintain a strong presence around Nubbl and Zahraa, the two cities that Russia and its allies brock the siege imposed for over three and a half years. Al-Qaeda fighters pulled back toward the north of Aleppo fighting in Tal-Rifaat and others toward the south of Zahraa where they are fighting in Andan and Hay’yan.

According to the source, human and signal intelligence confirmed that

“Saudi Arabia has asked Syrian opposition associated and not-associated with al-Qaeda not to waive any proposition in the Geneva negotiations and not to hand over any city in Syria without fighting. Time is crucial and Saudi Arabia will continue its military support to the opposition, waiting for a new U.S. to be elected. The battle is expected to be more intense where everybody is holding the ground which indicates that the war is still far form being over”

original article in Arabic

http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article/special-reports/2016/02/14/657188/nr/syria

Negotiations on Syria’s bloody armed conflict were held in Munich Thursday against the backdrop of a government offensive, supported by Russian airstrikes, to break the grip of Western-backed “rebels” over the largely shattered eastern part of Aleppo.

The talks were convened under the auspices of the 17-member International Syria Support Group, which includes the US and its regional allies—Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar—in the war for regime change in Syria, along with Russia and Iran, which are allied with and actively aiding the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Washington demanded an immediate cease-fire and halt to Russian airstrikes in Syria. The US, together with the reactionary Arab monarchies and the regime in Turkey, fears that without a halt to the fighting, the Islamist militias that they have supported, financed and armed for nearly five years may face irreparable defeat.

Russia, for its part, reportedly proposed a cease-fire that would begin on March 1, thus allowing enough time for the Syrian government to reestablish its control over Aleppo.

Late Thursday night, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that they had reached a tentative deal that would see a ceasefire “within a week” along with expedited humanitarian aid. Kerry allowed that while the agreement looked good “on paper,” it was yet to be tested. All of the underlying conflicts remain unresolved, and both US and Russian military operations are to continue in the name of the struggle against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

On the eve of the Munich talks, Kerry, in an interview with Washington Postcolumnist David Ignatius, delivered an unmistakable threat in connection with the US negotiating strategy in Munich: “What we’re doing is testing [Russian and Iranian] seriousness.” he said. “And if they’re not serious, then there has to be consideration of a Plan B… You can’t just sit there.”

“Plan B” would consist of a sharp escalation of the US military intervention in Syria, carried out under the cover of combating ISIS, but directed at toppling the Assad government.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also reportedly spent the last several days discussing a “Plan B” that would involve their participation in direct military intervention to save the “rebels” that they have supported. The Saudi-owned news group al-Arabiya has quoted officials in Riyadh as confirming the House of Saud’s decision to send troops into Syria in what would constitute a provocatively hostile invasion.

Responding to the ominous implications of such an escalation, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told the German daily Handelsblatt Thursday: “The Americans and our Arab partners must think hard about this—do they want a permanent war? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war.”

Medvedev’s choice of words was not mere hyperbole. A military intervention to rescue the “rebels,” which amounts to a war to save Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the Al Nusra Front, the leading force on the ground in Aleppo province, could quickly bring the US and its allies into combat with Russia, an armed confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers.

US officials have spoken in recent days of creating a “humanitarian corridor” to Aleppo and other rebel areas under siege by government forces. Presumably this “corridor” is meant to replace the main supply route for the “rebels” from Turkey, which has been cut off by the government offensive, disrupting the CIA-orchestrated arming of the “rebels” with stockpiles poured in from Libya, the Gulf oil kingdoms and beyond. Such a corridor would require a military force to protect it and enforcement of a “no-fly zone,” meaning a confrontation not only with Syrian government forces, but with Russian warplanes as well.

Turkey, Washington’s NATO ally, is meanwhile blocking its border to Syrian refugees in order to create the maximum crisis possible so that it can pursue its own strategic aims, which include not only regime change in Damascus, but also the bloody suppression of the Kurdish minority on both sides of the frontier.

The Obama administration has issued no warning to the American people that it is embarking on a policy in Syria that could pit the US against the Russian military and potentially trigger a global catastrophe.

There is no significant popular support for US military intervention in Syria, which has been promoted under the false flag of “humanitarianism,” aided by a whole coterie of pseudo-left organizations that have specialized in portraying a bloody sectarian campaign by CIA-backed Islamist militias as a “Syrian revolution.”

The extent of the catastrophe unleashed upon Syria through this intervention was spelled out in shocking terms with the release of a new study by the Syrian Center for Policy Research, which found that fully 11.5 per cent of the population inside Syria has been either killed or injured as a result of the armed conflict. The death toll from the war—combined with the systematic destruction of the country’s social infrastructure and health care system and a dramatic drop in living standards—has caused life expectancy to plummet from 70.5 years in 2010 to an estimated 55.4 years in 2015.

The study found further that the country’s unemployment rate had soared from 14.9 percent in 2011 to 52.9 percent by the end of 2015, and that the overall poverty rate is estimated at 85.2 percent.

In short, the Obama administration has inflicted upon Syria a war that is every bit as criminal and lethal as the war carried out by the Bush administration against Iraq.

The Syrian people are the victims of a US-orchestrated war that is driven by the global strategy of American imperialism to reverse its economic decline through the use or threat of military force. Washington sought regime change in Syria as a means to an end: the weakening of the two principal allies of Damascus, Russia and Iran, and the reassertion of a Western stranglehold on the vast energy resources of the Middle East.

The threat of world war is posed not merely by the prospect of US and Russian warplanes facing off in the skies over Syria, but by the entire logic of the Syrian war for regime change and the broader strategic aims that it serves. This finds expression in NATO’s escalation of the military encirclement of Russia and the increasingly provocative anti-Chinese policy being pursued by the Pentagon in the South China Sea.

The US drive for global hegemony was articulated in the strategic maxim enunciated by the Pentagon nearly a quarter of a century ago that Washington must prevent the emergence of any power capable of challenging the dominance of American capitalism on a global or even regional scale. This “grand strategy” has led to unceasing US wars of aggression since and now poses the real threat of a third, nuclear, world war.

Against this barbaric strategy of the US ruling establishment, the American and international working class must advance its own independent strategy, fighting for the withdrawal of US and all foreign military forces from Syria, Iraq and the entire Middle East and for the unity of the working class across all national, religious and ethnic boundaries in a common struggle to put an end to capitalism, the source of militarism and war.

This is a look at the larger picture of forces developing around Syria. Several foreign armies are aggregating at the Syrian borders with the intent to invade Syria and to occupy its eastern part. But before we dive into that, a short look at the curious situation developing in the north-west.

Near Azaz the U.S. ally Turkey is currently shelling (video) the U.S. ally YPG which is fighting the CIA supported FSA. 

The Syrian-Kurdish YPG troops were heavily supported by the U.S. in their fight against the Islamic State in north-eastern Syria. Under U.S. tutelage they united with Arab anti-IS fighters under the label Syrian Democratic Forces.

map by AFP(?) – bigger

In north-west Syria the SDF has used the recent success of the Syrian army against Jihadis in the area to take northern parts of the Azaz corridor which once connected Aleppo to Turkey. That corridor is held by a mixture of al-Qaeda Jihadist from Jabhat al-Nusra, “Turkmen” Islamists from various Turk speaking countries and local Islamist gangs supported by the CIA under the label Free Syrian Army. All three get money and weapons from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The Syrian army is moving north and south from the red strip in the map. The SDF is moving east from the Kurdish enclave around Afrin. During the last days the SDF, supported by the Russian airforce, captured the Minnagh airbase which was held by al-Qaeda aligned forces. The SDF then proceeded north to take Azaz, the last major town the Turkish supported Islamist are holding in the area.

Turkey today used 155mm artillery to fire from Turkey against SDF positions on Minnagh airbase and around Azaz. There will be Turkish special forces observers in Syria to direct the fire.

The NATO member Turkey is shelling the YPG, which is backed by Russia and the U.S., and the SDF which is backed by the U.S. for attacking the FSA and Islamists who are backed by the U.S., Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

A nice little clusterfuck the smart (not) girls and boys around Obama created.

But as described here two days ago in The Race To Raqqa Is On, a much bigger clusterfuck is currently in the making in and all around Syria.

The Russian and Syrian airforce will likely respond to the Turkish attack with an intensified bombing of positions held by Turkish proxy forces in Syria. Those forces just received new artillery ammunition and new TOW anti-tank missiles.

There is yet unconfirmed news that this situation will escalate very fast:

The Int’l Spectator @intlspectator
BREAKING: Turkish official says there will be a ‘massive escalation’ in Syria over next 24 hours.

The Turkish Foreign Minister said today that the fight against ISIS must include (Turkish) ground operations.

The Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian allies are determined to liberate the whole country from the foreign supported terrorists and the Islamic State. The want to keep the country united.

The aim of outside forces, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, the U.S., Britain, France is to occupy east Syria to gain political concession from the Syrian government and its allies. They will demand the reconfiguration of the independent, secular Syrian state under President Assad into a dependent Sunni Islamist entity. Should that demand not be fulfilled they will form a new “Sunnistan” Islamist protectorate from the currently ISIS held carcasses of east Syria and west-Iraq.

Turkey today threatened further and wider attacks on Kurdish held areas in Syria. The Turkish 2nd Army is positioned to attack Syria from the north. It could come through the ISIS held corridor between Azaz in the west and Jarablus in the east and move south towards the Islamic State held Raqqa while other forces, see below, would reach Raqqa from the south and south east. Syria would be thus split into a government held western half and an ISIS and U.S. allies held eastern half.

Russian advisers have trained one Syrian brigade specifically for the purpose of holding off a Turkish invasion. But that brigade is probably not a big enough deterrence for the large Turkish forces and could soon be overwhelmed.

The Saudis today claimed again that Assad must be overthrown to defeat the Islamic State. That is of course nonsense but the Saudi family dictatorship has a personal grudge against Assad. The Syrian President once called the Saudis “only half men”. (IMHO He was too generous.)

Twenty Saudi F-15 jets arrived today in Incirlik airbase in Turkey to, allegedly, join the U.S. coalition force against the Islamic State. The Saudis also promised to send ground forces if those would fight under some allied command “against ISIS”. The United Arab Emirates promised to send special forces for the same purpose. Some Saudi ground forces have already been observed making their way through Jordan.

At least 1,600 British troops with heavy weapons and equipment are currently arriving in Jordan. The Brits claim that this is just for some normal training maneuver but we can expect the British government to paid off enough by the Gulf Arabs to take part in the fight. The British units would likely lead a Saudi/UAE/(maybe also Egyptian?) combined force from east Jordan up through the Syrian desert towards Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. These forces are currentlyexplained as “trainers” who will enter Syria to instigate Syrian Arab tribes to fight ISIS. If there were enough forces in such tribes at all, these could be trained in Jordan. There is currently no Syrian or Russian force in the desert that could prevent such a move.

An additional brigade from the U.S. 101st Airborne is deploying to Iraq without much public announcement. Its task is an invasion of Syria from the south-east along the Euphrates to first capture Deir Ezzor and to then move on to Raqqa.

The Syrian army is on its way to ISIS held Raqqa to prevent any foreign force reaching there first. It will have to hurry up. The race to Raqqa is intensifying.

The Russians have alarmed several airborne brigades and air transport units of their Southern command to be ready for a fast intervention should such troops be needed in Syria. The Russians could airdrop an airborne brigade into the government held, ISIS besieged parts of Deir Ezzor (vid) to prevent that city from being attacked or taken over by Saudi and/or U.S. forces. Two additional Russian missile ships are on their way to the Syrian coast. They carry long distance Kalibr cruise missiles which can be used against other ships as well as against land targets.

Iran is ready to send as many men from its Revolutionary Guard and Quds brigades to Syria as are needed to sustain the governments fight. These folks salivate over the prospect of having some regular Saudi forces for breakfast.

There are active attempts to draw all NATO nations into the phony “fight against ISIS”. When the war over Syria gets hotter NATO will likely try to create diversions elsewhere to keep Russia distracted from reacting properly in Syria. The U.S. will tell its Ukrainian puppet government to reengage in massive attacks on Russian supported Ukrainian rebels in east Ukraine.

The war against Syria, waged by the U.S., Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, was so far carried out by proxy forces and foreign mercenaries within Syria’s borders. When the Syrian government was on the verge of losing the successful Russian intervention turned the war around. German intelligence no asserts (in German) that the Syrian government is winning the war against the foreign supported forces.

As the war by proxy against Syria has now failed, the anti-Syrian powers have decided to join the action on the ground with their own forces. The “fight against ISIS” (which the Syrians and Russian are fighting more than anybody else) is now the pretext to capture eastern Syria, to split the country in half and to destroy the Syrian government and state.

The “civil war” in Syria is now developing into an large international conflagration over the future of Syria and the whole Middle East.

Meanwhile the Islamic State, confused by this U.S. created clusterfuck in Iraq and Syria, decides to relocate its headquarters from Iraq and Syria to Libya, the other failed state and Charly Foxtrot the U.S. (F, UK) recently created. There it will find rich oil fields, lots of new weapons and no capable enemies.

The situation in Syria has reached a watershed moment and a dramatic escalation of the war appears imminent. Let’s look again at how we reached this point.

During the first phase of the operation, the Syrian armed forces were unable to achieve an immediate strategic success. This is rather unsurprising. It is important to remember here that during the first weeks of the operation the Russian did not provide close air support to the Syrians. Instead, they chose to systematically degrade the entire Daesh (Note: I refer to *all* terrorist in Syria as “Daesh”) infrastructure including command posts, communication nodes, oil dumps, ammo dumps, supply routes, etc. This was important work, but it did not have an immediate impact upon the Syrian military. Then the Russians turned to two important tasks: to push back Daesh in the Latakia province and to hit the illegal oil trade between Daesh and Turkey. The first goal was needed for the protection of the Russian task force and the second one hit the Daesh finances. Then the Russians seriously turned to providing close air support. Not only that, but the Russians got directly involved with the ground operation.

The second phase was introduced gradually, without much fanfare, but it made a big difference on the ground: the Russians and Syrians began to closely work together and they soon honed their collaboration to a quantitatively new level which allowed the Syrian commanders to use Russian firepower with great effectiveness. Furthermore, the Russians began providing modern equipment to the Syrians, including T-90 tanks, modern artillery systems, counter-battery radars, night vision gear, etc. Finally, according to various Russian reports, Russian special operations teams (mostly Chechens) were also engaged in key locations, including deep in the rear of Daesh. As a result, the Syrian military for the first time went from achieving tactical successes to operational victories: for the first time the Syrian began to liberate key towns of strategic importance.

Finally, the Russians unleashed a fantastically intense firepower on Daesh along crucial sectors of the front. In northern Homs, the Russians bombed a sector for 36 hours in a row. According to the latest briefing of the Russian Defense Ministry, just between February 4th and February 11th, the Russian aviation group in the Syrian Arab Republic performed 510 combat sorties and engaged 1,888 terrorists targets. That kind of ferocious pounding did produce the expected effect and the Syrian military began slowly moving along the Turkish-Syrian border while, at the same time, threatening the Daesh forces still deployed inside the northern part of Aleppo. In doing so, the Russians and Syrian threatened to cut off the vital resupply route linking Daesh to Turkey. According to Russian sources, Daesh forces were so demoralized that they forced the local people to flee towards the Turkish border and attempted to hide inside this movement of internally displaced civilians.

This strategic Russian and Syrian victory meant that all the nations supporting Daesh, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA were facing a complete collapse of their efforts to overthrow Assad and to break-up Syria and turn part of it into a “Jihadistan”. The Americans could not admit this, of course; as for the Saudis, their threats to invade Syria were rather laughable. Which left the main role to Erdogan who was more than happy to provide the West with yet another maniacal ally willing to act in a completely irresponsible way just to deny the “other side” anything looking like a victory.

Erdogan seems to be contemplating two options. The first one is a ground operation into Syria aimed at restoring the supply lines of Daesh and at preventing the Syrian military from controlling the border. Here is a good illustration (taken from a SouthFront video) of what this would look like:

Credit: SouthFront

According to various reports, Erdogan has 18,000 soldiers supported by aircraft, armor and artillery poised along the border to execute such an invasion.

The second plan is even simpler, at least in theory: to create a no-fly zone over all of Syria. Erdogan personally mentioned this option several times, the latest one on Thursday the 11th.

Needless to say, both plans are absolutely illegal under international law and would constitute an act of aggression, the “supreme international crime”according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Not that this would deter a megalomaniac like Erdogan.

Erdogan, and his backers in the West, will, of course, claim that a humanitarian disaster, or even a genocide, is taking place in Aleppo, that there is a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and that no UNSC is needed to take such clearly “humanitarian” action. It would be “Sarajevo v2” or “Kosovo v2” all over again. The western media is now actively busy demonizing Putin, and just recently has offered the following topics to ponder to those poor souls who still listen to it:

1. Putin ‘probably’ ordered the murder of Litvinenko.
2. Putin ordered the murder of Litvinenko because Litvinenko was about to reveal that Putin was a pedophile (seriously, I kid you not – check for yourself!).
3. WWIII could start by Russia invading Latvia.
4. According to the US Treasury, Putin is a corrupt man.
5. According to George Soros, Putin wants the “disintegration of the EU” and Russia is a bigger threat than the Jihadis.
6. Russia is so scary that the Pentagon wants to quadruple the money for the defense of Europe.
7. The Putin is strengthening ISIS in Syria and causing a wave of refugees.

There is no need to continue the list – you get the idea. It is really Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya all over again, with the exact same “humanitarian crocodile tears” and the exact same rational for an illegal aggression. And instead of Sarajavo “martyr city besieged by Serbian butchers” we would now have Aleppo “martyr city besieged by Syrian butchers”. I even expect a series of false flags inside Aleppo next “proving” that “the world” “must act” to “prevent a genocide”.

The big difference, of course, is that Yugoslavia, Serbia, Iraq and Libya were all almost defenseless against the AngloZionist Empire. Not so Russia.

In purely military terms, Russia has taken a number of crucial steps: she declared a large scale “verification” of the “combat readiness” of the Southern and Central military districts. In practical terms, this means that all the Russian forces are on high alert, especially the AeroSpace forces, the Airborne Forces, the Military Transportation Aviation forces and, of course, all the Russian forces in Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet. The first practical effect of such “exercises” is not only to make a lot of forces immediately available, but it is also to make them very difficult to track. This not only protects the mobilized forces, but also makes it very hard for the enemy to figure out what exactly they are doing. There are also report that Russian Airborne Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft – A-50M – are now regularly flying over Syria. In other words, Russia has taken the preparations needed to go to war with Turkey.

Needless to say, the Turks and the Saudis have also announced joint military exercises. They have even announced that Saudi aircraft will conduct airstrikes from the Incirlik air base in support of an invasion of Syria.

At the same time, the Russians have also launched a peace initiative centered around a general ceasefire starting on March 1st or even, according to the latest leaks, on February 15th. The goal is is transparent: to break the Turkish momentum towards an invasion of Syria. It is obvious that Russian diplomats are doing everything they can to avert a war with Turkey.

Here again I have to repeat what I have said already a million times in the past: the small Russian contingent in Syria is in a very precarious position: far away from Russia and very close (45km) to Turkey. Not only that, but the Turks have over 200 combat aircraft ready to attack, whereas the Russians probably has less than 20 SU-30/35/34s in total. Yes, these are very advanced aircraft, of the 4++ generation, and they will be supported by S-400 systems, but the force ratio remains a terrible 1:10.

Russia does, however, have one big advantage over Turkey: Russia has plenty of long-range bombers, armed with gravity bombs and cruise missiles, capable of striking the Turks anywhere, in Syria and in Turkey proper. In fact, Russia even has the capability to strike at Turkish airfields, something which the Turks cannot prevent and something which they cannot retaliate in kind for. The big risk for Russia, at this point, would be that NATO would interpret this as a Russian “aggression” against a member-state, especially if the (in)famous Incirlik air base is hit.

Erdogan also has to consider another real risk: that, while undoubtedly proficient, the Turkish forces might not be a match for the battle-hardened Kurds and Syrians, especially if the latter are supported by Iranian and Hezbollah forces. The Turks have a checkered record against the Kurds whom they typically do overwhelm with firepower and numbers, but whom they never succeeded in neutralizing, subduing or eliminating. Finally, there is the possibility that Russians might have to use their ground forces, especially if the task force in Khmeimim is really threatened.

In this regard, let me immediately say that the projection of, say, an airborne force so far from the Russian border to protect a small contingent like the one in Khmeimim is not something the Airborne Forces are designed for, at least not “by the book”. Still, in theory, if faced with a possible attack on the Russian personnel in Khmeimin, the Russians could decide to land a regimental-size airborne force, around 1,200 men, fully mechanized, with armor and artillery. This force could be supplemented by a Naval Infantry battalion with up to another 600 men. This might not seem like much in comparison to the alleged 18,000 men Erdogan has massed at the border, but keep in mind that only a part of these 18,000 would be available for any ground attack on Khmeimin and that the Russian Airborne forces can turn even a much larger force into hamburger meat (for a look at modern Russian Airborne forces please see here). Frankly, I don’t see the Turks trying to overrun Khmeimin, but any substantial Turkish ground operation will make such a scenario at least possible and Russian commanders will not have the luxury of assuming that Erdogan is sane, not after the shooting down of the SU-24. After that the Russians simply have to assume the worst.

What is clear is that in any war between Russia and Turkey NATO will have to make a key decision: is the alliance prepared to go to war with a nuclear power like Russia to protect a lunatic like Erdogan? It is hard to imagine the US/NATO doing something so crazy but, unfortunately, wars always have the potential to very rapidly get out of control. Modern military theory has developed many excellent models of escalation but, unfortunately, no good model of how de-escalation could happen (at least not that I am aware of). How does one de-escalate without appearing to be surrendering or at least admitting to being the weaker side?

The current situation is full of dangerous and unstable asymmetries: the Russian task force in Syria is small and isolated and it cannot protect Syria from NATO or even from Turkey, but in the case of a full-scale war between Russia and Turkey, Turkey has no chance of winning, none at all. In a conventional war opposing NATO and Russia I personally don’t see either side losing (whatever ‘losing’ and ‘winning’ mean in this context) without engaging nuclear weapons first. This suggests to me that the US cannot allow Erdogan to attack the Russian task force in Syria, not during a ground invasion and, even less so, during an attempt to establish a no-fly zone.

The problem for the USA is that it has no good option to achieve its overriding goal in Syria: to “prevent Russia from winning”. In the delusional minds of the AngloZionist rulers, Russia is just a “regional power” which cannot be allowed to defy the “indispensable nation”. And yet, Russia is doing exactly that both in Syria and in the Ukraine and Obama’s entire Russia policy is in shambles. Can he afford to appear so weak in an election year? Can the US “deep state” let the Empire be humiliated and its weakness exposed?

The latest news strongly suggests to me that the White House has taken the decision to let Turkey and Saudi Arabia invade Syria. Turkish officials are openly saying that an invasion is imminent and that the goal of such an invasion would be toreverse the Syrian army gains along the boder and near Aleppo. The latest reports are also suggesting that the Turks have begun shelling Aleppo. None of that could be happening without the full support of CENTCOM and the White House.

The Empire has apparently concluded that Daesh is not strong enough to overthrow Assad, at least not when the Russian AeroSpace forces are supporting him, so it will now unleash the Turks and the Saudis in the hope of changing the outcome of this war or, if that is not possible, to carve up Syria into ‘zones of responsibility” – all under the pretext of fighting Daesh, of course.

The Russian task force in Syria is about to be very seriously challenged and I don’t see how it could deal with this new threat by itself. I very much hope that I am wrong here, but I have do admit that a *real* Russian intervention in Syria might happen after all, with MiG-31s and all. In fact, in the next few days, we are probably going to witness a dramatic escalation of the conflict in Syria.

It’s a joke. We couldn’t wish [for] more than that. If they can do it, then let them do it — but talking militarily, this is not easy for a country already facing defeat in another war, in Yemen, where after almost one year they have failed in achieving any real victory.

That’s what one source in the Iranian military had to say about reports that Saudi Arabia is preparing to send ground troops into Syria.

If you frequent these pages you know why Riyadh (and Ankara for that matter) is considering the ground option. The effort to oust Bashar al-Assad and the Alawite government was going reasonably well right up until September. Sure, the conflict was dragging into its fifth year, but Assad’s army was on the ropes and absent a miracle, it seemed likely that his government would fall.

As it turns out, Assad did indeed get a miracle from above although instead of divine intervention it was Russian airstrikes which commenced from Latakia starting on September 30. Contrary to The White House’s prediction that Putin would find himself in a “quagmire,” Russia and Hezbollah have rolled up the opposition and are preparing to recapture Aleppo, the country’s largest city and a major commercial hub. If that happens, the rebellion is over.

That would be a disaster to the rebels’ Sunni benefactors as it would mean Iran will preserve the Shiite crescent and its supply lines to Hezbollah. It would also give Tehran bragging rights in the bitter ideological war with Riyadh. Simply put, that’s unacceptable for the Saudis and so, it’s time to call upon the ground troops.

But this isn’t Yemen where the Iranians are fighting via proxies. If the Saudis start shooting at the IRGC or at Hezbollah in Syria it’s just as likely as not that the two countries will go to war and just like that, you’d have the beginning of World War III.

Don’t believe us? Just ask Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev.

“If Arab forces entered the Syrian war they could spark a new world war,” Medvedev warned on Thursday. “Ground offensives usually lead to wars becoming permanent”. Here’s what else he told Handelsblatt:

The Americans and our Arabic partners must think hard about this: do they want a permanent war?

Do they really think they would win such a war very quickly? That’s impossible, especially in the Arabic world. There everyone is fighting against everyone… everything is far more complicated. It could take years or decades.

Why is that necessary? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war.

Yes, “all sides must come to the negotiating table.” Of course that’s easy for Medvedev to say. After all, it’s a lot easier to sit at the table when you’ve already won and are negotiating from a position of strength.

That is, there won’t be anything left to negotiate in a couple of weeks if things keep going like they’re going. What Moscow pretty clearly wants to do is crush the opposition in Aleppo and then discuss how to proceed with some kind of political “agreement” that will prevent whatever remains of the rebels from launching a prolonged war of attrition involving periodic attacks on government forces.

In any event, don’t say Russia didn’t warn everyone when the Saudis and the Turks end up setting the world on the road to a global conflict. Below, find excerpts from an interview The Atlantic conducted with Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Kathy Gilsinan: I wanted to start with what the significance of Aleppo has been to the Syrian uprising up to this point.

Andrew Tabler: Aleppo is Syria’s largest city. It’s the commercial hub. It is extremely important, particularly to the opposition, because Aleppo, along with the other northwestern cities, have been some of the strongest opponents to the Assad regime historically. I think the decision in 2012 to take [the city] was one of the first real major offensives of the armed opposition in Syria. And they hoped that by denying the regime Aleppo, it would set up an alternative capital and allow for a process where the Assad regime’s power was whittled away. Since that time, it has instead been one of the most bombed, barrel-bombed, and decimated parts of Syria, and now is much more like Dresden than anything else.

Gilsinan: If Aleppo falls, walk me through what happens next. First, how would it change the balance of power, within the civil war, between the rebels and the regime?

Tabler: I think it would cement the regime’s hold on “essential Syria”—western Syria, perhaps with the exception of Idlib province [to] the south [of Aleppo]. But basically you would have the regime presence from Aleppo the whole way down to Hama, Homs, and Damascus, and that’s the spine of the country, and that’s what concerns the regime and the Iranians in particular. It would then allow them to free up forces, potentially, to go on the offensive elsewhere, directly into Idlib province, most likely, and then eventually into the south. Then after that they could turn their attention finally to ISIS.

Gilsinan: And then what happens to the regional balance of power within that war?

Tabler: It would be a tremendous loss for the U.S. and its traditional allies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan. It’s already been extremely costly for most of those allies, but it would be a defeat [in the face of] the Russian-Iranian intervention in Syria. This would also be a huge loss for the United States vis-à-vis Russia in its Middle East policy, certainly. And because of the flow of refugees as a result of this, if they go northward to Europe, then you would see a migrant crisis in Europe that could lead to far-right governments coming to power which are much more friendly to Russia than they are to the United States. I think that is likely to happen.

Gilsinan: So it changes the entire orientation, not just of the Middle East, but of Europe as well.

Tabler: It will soften up American power in Europe, yeah. And put into jeopardy a lot of the advances in the NATO-accession countries, which are adjacent to Russia, as well.

While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.

Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.

The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington’s behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a “brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.” Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.

With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used “chemical weapons against his own people.” Obama turned these predictions into a “red line.” When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington’s puppets, the US would invade Syria.

With the “red line” drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the “red line.”

Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks. David Cameron, Washington’s puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.

Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.

Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.

Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..

Washington’s support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime to support ISIS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c

The neoconservative insistence that “Assad must go” comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel’s attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.

The Islamic State that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington’s exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.

In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria.
The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.

Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.
The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.

Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.

Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.

The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.

Here is a description of the race to Raqqa: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/the-race-to-raqqa-is-on-to-keep-its-unity-syria-must-win-.html

Here is The Saker’s take on the seriousness of the situation: http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-a-dramatic-escalation-appears-imminent/

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Preparing the British public for collective suicide?

Or a voice of reason in a world gone mad under US-Russian confrontation?

Is the BBC preparing the British public for collective suicide? Or is its film a voice of reason in a world gone mad under U.S.-Russian confrontation? The Russians and all of ‘progressive humanity’ have been jumping up and down about this pseudo-documentary film. The sound bite from one War Room participant that “I wouldn’t mind killing tens of thousands of Russians” has been trumpeted as a major provocation. Baltics politicians on both sides of the issue are furious. However, seeing the film through to its unexpected ending, one is left with big questions about the intentions of its producers and of its high level participants that so far no one has addressed.

The pseudo-documentary film aired on BBC on February 3, World War Three: Inside the War Room, (here on BBC Two, for UK only) was described in advance by the BBC as a ‘war game’ detailing the minute by minute deliberations of the country’s highest former defense and security officials facing an evolving crisis involving Russia. What gave unusual realism and relevance to their participation is that they were speaking their own thoughts, producing their own argumentation, not reading out lines handed to them by television script writers.

The mock crisis to which they were reacting occurs in Latvia as the Kremlin’s intervention on behalf of Russian speakers in the south of this Baltic country develops along lines of events in the Donbas as from the summer of 2014. When the provincial capital of Daugavpils and more than twenty towns in the surrounding region bordering Russia are taken by pro-Russian separatists, the United States calls upon its NATO allies to deliver an ultimatum to the Russians to pull back their troops within 72 hours or be pushed out by force. This coalition of the willing only attracts the British. After the deadline passes, the Russians ‘accidentally’ launch a tactical nuclear strike against British and American vessels in the Baltic Sea, destroying two ships with the loss of 1200 Marines and crew on the British side. Washington then calls for like-for-like nuclear attack on a military installation in Russia, which, as we understand, leads to full nuclear war.

The show was aired on February 3, 2016 by BBC Two, meaning it was directed at a domestic audience, not the wider world. However, in the days since its broadcast, it has attracted a great deal of attention outside the United Kingdom, more, in fact, than within Britain itself. The Russians, in particular, adopted a posture of indignation, calling the film a provocation. In his widely watched weekend wrap-up of world news, Russia’s senior television journalist Dimitri Kiselev devoted close to ten minutes denouncing the BBC production. He cited one participant (former UK Ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton) expressing pleasure at the idea of ‘killing tens of thousands of Russians’. This segment was later repeated on Vesti hourly news programs during the past week. Kiselev asked rhetorically how the British would react if Moscow produced a mirror image show from its War Room.

For its part, the world broadcaster Russia Today (RT) issued a harsh review which castigates the British broadcaster for presenting Russia as “Dr. Evil Incarnate, the villain that regularly plays opposite peace-loving NATO nations.” It saw the motivation of the producers as related to ‘the military-industrial shopping season’. RT alleges the BBC was trying to drum up popular support for the modernization of Britain’s nuclear Trident submarines at a cost to taxpayers of some 100 billion pounds ($100 billion).

Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said it was “low grade” (the words translated by some as “trash”) and that he didn’t bother to watch it. If so, that is a pity for the reasons I will set out below.

The program also generated a great deal of emotion in Latvia, on both sides of the fundamental issue. The country’s Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics tweeted that he found parts of the program to be “rubbish” while other parts had lessons to be studied. Public Broadcasting of Latvia was concerned over the scant support the country appears to enjoy in Britain and other NATO member states, judging by the deliberations in the War Room. For their part, members of the Russian speaking community were deeply upset by the way the program provides grist to the mill of those who view them as a fifth column ready to be used by the Kremlin for its aggressive purposes.

Examination of the British print media’s reaction to World War Three results in a very different impression of the film.

Reviews in the British press mostly directed attention to the program’s entertainment value. The Telegraph called the film “gripping and terrifying”. The Independent reviewer tells us:

It started out as quite a dull discussion but as the hypothetical situation escalated – and boy did it escalate quickly – it fast became compelling, if not terrifying, viewing….It was a little clichéd – the Russians were the bad guys, the UK set lots of deadlines but ultimately wouldn’t commit to any action and the US went in all guns (or nuclear weapons) blazing – but then clichés are always clichés for a reason.

In a reversal of roles, the tabloid Daily Mail ended up doing the heavy lifting for the British press with thoughtful in-depth reporting. The newspaper expressed deep surprise at the way World War Three: Inside the War Room ends, with the war room team voting overwhelmingly to order Trident submarine commanders not to fire even as Russian nuclear ICBMs have been launched and are on their way to targets in the West, including England. The paper noted, correctly I might add, that this puts in question the value of the Trident deterrent, which the Cameron government is planning to renew. The newspaper sent out its reporters to follow up on this stunning aspect of the BBC film.

The Daily Mail especially wanted elucidation of two remarks at the very end of the film, just prior to the final vote. One was by Sir Tony Brenton, UK Ambassador to Russia 2004-2008, who says in the film: “Do we pointlessly kill millions of Russians or not? To me it’s a no-brainer – we do not.” This quote deserves special attention because it was made by Brenton right after his widely cited and seemingly scandalous statement which has been taken out of context, namely that he wouldn’t mind killing tens of thousands of Russians in response to the destruction of the British vessel in the Baltic by Russia at the cost of 1200 British lives.

The second remark from the end of the film cited by The Daily Mail which they in fact follow-up was more surprising still, coming as it did from a top military official, General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, 2011-2014. Shirreff declared on camera: “I say do not fire.”

When asked about it, Shirreff gave the newspaper a still better sound bite that bears repeating in full:

At this point it was clear deterrence had failed. My feeling was it had become a moral issue – that the use of force can only be justified to prevent a greater evil…if the UK is going to be obliterated, what is going to be achieved if we obliterate half of Russia as well? It was going to create an even worse evil.

It is a great pity that the Kremlin has chosen to vilify the BBC’s producers and overlook these extraordinary open text signals from the very top of the British political and defense elites.

If nothing else, The Daily Mail reporting knocks out the easy answers and compels us to ask anew what did the British broadcaster have in mind when it produced the pseudo-documentary World War Three? Moreover, why did top former British diplomats, military officials and politicians agree to participate in this film?

In one sense, this film is a collective selfie. It might be just another expression of our contemporary narcissism, when former top government officials publish their memoirs soon after leaving office and tell all. But several of the participants are not even former office holders. They continue to be active and visible. Here, one can name the Liberal Democrat Baroness Falkner, spokesperson for foreign policy. Here, too, is Dr. Ian Kearns who remains very much in the news as the director of the European Leadership Network, partner to the leadership of the Munich Security Conference and a member of teams that are invited to Moscow from time to time to talk international security issues with the Russians. Surely these VIP participants in the film had no intension of cutting off contacts by antagonizing the Kremlin. So there is something else going on.

What that something else might be can be teased out if we pay close attention to their deliberations on screen. I believe they earnestly sought to share with the British public the burden of moral and security decision-making, to present themselves as reasonable people operating to the best of their knowledge and with all due respect for contrary opinions to reach the best possible recommendations for action in the national interest.

In the war room, we are presented with two very confident hard liners, General Richard Shirreff, mentioned above, and Admiral Lord West, former Chief of Naval Staff; and with two very confident soft liners, Baronness Falkner, the Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesman, and Sir Tony Brenton, also identified above. The others seated at the table do not have firm views and are open to persuasion.

It is noteworthy that argumentation is concise and apart from the occasional facial expression showing exasperation with opponents, there is a high level of purely intellectual debate throughout. Though one of the reviewers in the British press calls Falkner a “peacenik” in what is not meant as a compliment, no such compartmentalizing of thinking appears in the video. And the counter arguments are set out in some detail.

The voting at turning points in the developing scenario of confrontation with Russia is open. When the participants consider Britain joining the United States led coalition of the willing ready to use force to eject the Russians from Latvia, they insist they will not be passive in the relationship, will not be Washington’s ‘poodle’. This is in clear reference to criticism of the Blair government’s joining the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Baroness Falkner is allowed to question the very logic of NATO. She calls the early decisions taken by the majority of her colleagues “sleepwalking”, an allusion to the group think that brought all of Europe into the suicidal First World War. With further reference to WWI, she says that the British government must look after the security of its people and not blindly submit to the wishes of an Alliance when that spells doom, such as happened in 1914.

At each turn of the voting on what to do next, until the very last, the hard liners win out. But positions can and ultimately do flip-flop. In the end the overwhelming majority around the table decides not to press the button.

However, if the participants want to show themselves as open-minded and sincere, that does mean that the facts they work from are objective and equally well vetted? Here we come to a crucial problem of the documentary: Narration of the pre-history to the crisis over the Baltics, namely the archival footage on the Russian-Georgian War of 2008, the Russian ‘annexation’ of Crimea and the Russian ‘intervention’ in Donbass , is an unqualified presentation of the narrative from Washington’s and London’s viewpoint, with Russia as aggressor. The narration of the crisis events as they unfold is also the unqualified, unchallenged view from the British Foreign Office.

The pseudo-reporting on the ground in Daugavpils, Latvia, which is the epicenter of the crisis, gives viewers part of the reason for the fictional Russian intervention, but only a small part. One Russian speaker tells the reporter that she is participating a street protest because Russian-speakers have been deprived of citizenship since the independence of Latvia and this cannot continue. But we are not told what the former diplomats in the War Room surely know: that Britain was complicit in this situation. In fact, the British knew perfectly well from before the vote on accession of the Baltic states to the EU in 2004 that Latvia and Estonia were in violation of the rules of European conventions concerning minorities. However, in the back-room negotiations which led to the final determination of the list of new EU member states, the British chose to ignore the Latvian violations, which should have held up admission, for the sake of getting support from other member states for extending EU membership to Cyprus.

The unfolding scenario of Russian actions and Western reactions does not attempt to penetrate Russian thinking in any depth. We are given the usual generalizations about the personality of Vladimir Putin. The most profound observation we are offered is that Russian elites only understand strength and would not allow Putin to back down, so he must be offered face-saving gestures even as his aggression is foiled.

The objectives of Russian moves on the geopolitical chessboard are not debated. The question of how the Baltics and Ukraine are similar or different for Russian national interest is hardly explored. Simply put, as the British press reviews understood, the Russians are ‘bad guys’.

Moreover, the authors of this war game assume that the past is a good guide to the future, which in warfare of all kinds is very often a fallacious and dangerous assumption. There is no reason to believe that the Russian hybrid warfare [sic] used in Crimea and Donbass would be applied to the Baltics, or that escalation would be gradual. Given the much smaller scale of the Baltic states, each with two million or fewer inhabitants, and the short logistical lines, it might be more reasonable to consider the Russians moving in and occupying the capitals in one fell swoop if they had reason to do so.

At present, they do not. But if the build-up of NATO troops and materiel along the Western frontiers of Russia and in the Baltic Sea continues as projected in President Obama’s latest appropriations for that purpose, reason for Russian action might well appear. In this case, the confrontation might proceed straight to red alert on strategic nuclear forces without any intermediary pinpricks that this film details, much as happened back in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The British, as well as other NATO countries would then be totally sidelined as talks went on directly between Moscow and Washington.

The tragedy of our times of information warfare is that well-educated and sincere citizens are blind-sighted. We have an old maxim that when you cannot persuade, confuse. The fatal flaw is when you believe your own propaganda. If nothing else, the BBC documentary demonstrates that for Western elites this is what has happened. The reaction to the film from the Kremlin, suggests the same has happened to Eastern elites.

Gilbert Doctorow PhD is the European Coordinator of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? (August 2015), is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites. For donations to support the European activities of ACEWA, write to[email protected]. – Gilbert Doctorow, PhD, blog Une parole franche, Feb 10, 2016

Amidst a hand-wringing defence of the indefensible, The New Statesman propagated a common myth thus: “The European Union has indeed brought peace and prosperity to the people of Europe, . . .”

Indeed, it never did. The institution that arguably brought peace and truly brought prosperity to Europe was the E.E.C. Colloquially, ‘it was a different type of animal,’ say, the cow in the barn as opposed to the wolf at the door (now which institution might symbolize?).

And talking about animals, we never had a single ‘PIGS’ during the E.E.C.’s years, did we? Neither were there so many ailing and failing economies nor were such degrading epithets flung around. In fact, the defamed nations are not ‘PIGS;’ they are Old Testament ‘scapegoats.’ Greece is but the latest one.

So much for the animal metaphors.

The realist may say that the E.E.C.’s very success is the reason that it had to be done away with but in all likelihood it was only a decoy and bridge to the Frankenstein’s Monster that is the EU. Haven’t we seen it elsewhere? Recall what fair and balanced council preceded the extra-jurisdictional W.T.O. That was now-defunct GATT.

So there we are.The EU is an encore performance!And it is an open secret that there is to be a final sequel, the supra-national entity ‘Europa.’

The E.E.C., from a pre-Thatcherite socialist cum nationalist era, was steered in the main by anonymous technocrats and economists who have long since been shunted aside.In contrast, predatory bankers and unelected commissioners pull the EU’s strings, just as they pull the strings of the various mercenary viceroys posing as heads of state.

As for that fading feel-good factor surrounding the European Coercion, oops!, we mean the ‘European Union,’ it is probably a residual effect from the old E.E.C. That is, E.E.C. goodwill has been spilling over into the EU (where most of it evaporates).

If this tract sounds anti-EU, it is meant to be.However, this Eurosceptic is a Europhile: for to hate the EU means to love ‘Beautiful Europe,’ as the song calls it.Those who love now-endangered Beautiful Europe should beware of a new three-way Axis that threatens The Continent: Berlin-Brussels-Strasbourg.

(Turn over this counterfeit EU-Axis trinket and on the back edge you’ll read ‘Made in Maastricht’ in small letters.Too bad it doesn’t also have a ‘Made disclosure.)

Eurosceptics know that it will be The Grapes of Wrath, European varietals.Already Greece’s baby Joads are dying while but of course the reptilian Merkelians feast on caviar.

Time to read a new (all-too obvious) meaning into a certain play. We mean that, ah, ‘Greek Tragedy,’ Medea. Now playing in Athens with a fresh twist: the role of the eponymous princess-sorceress is taken by a male, the chameleonic thespian Alexis Tsipras.

You know how that play ends.

P.S. This just in:Duchess-Viceroy Angela Merkel has retorted to a courtier, “Then let them eat caviar!”

You know how play ends too.

Presstitute Media, such as the UK Telegraph, spend a lot of energy debunking exposés of government conspiracies. For example, the thousands of highrise architects, structural engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, demolition experts, first responders, military and civilian pilots, and former government officials who have provided vast evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a made-up fairy tale at odds with all evidence and the laws of physics are dismissed by presstitutes as “conspiracy theorists.”

Similarly, those, such as James W. Douglass, who have proven beyond all doubt that President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Oswald but by his own paranoid anti-communist military-security complex, are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the Warren Commission Report were cover-ups. VP Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives he sponsored needed a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to begin their military assaults on the Middle Eastern countries that had independent foreign policies instead of being US/Israeli vassals. 9/11 was their orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor,” and this fact had to be covered up when 9/11 families persisted in their demands for an investigation and could not be bought off for large sums of money.

Similarly, the Warren Commission had no choice but to cover up that a popular American president, John F. Kennedy, had been murdered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the Secret Service, because he was believed by paranoid anti-communists to be “soft on communism” and thereby a threat to the security of the United States. The cold war was on, and the Warren Commission could not hold those responsible accountable without destroying the public’s confidence in the American military and security services.

Nevertheless everyone aware of the forged case against Oswald knew what had happened. One of these people was Attorney General Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother.

Bobby Kennedy understood the situation. He knew that as a member of a cover-up administration he could do nothing about it. However, he knew that if he won the presidency, he could hold accountable those security elements responsible. His brother had told him that after his reelection he was going to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” When the Vietnam war destroyed President Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy emerged as the next president of the US.

Bobby Kennedy was assassinated the evening that he won the California Democratic primary. Sirhan Sirhan was blamed. He was standing in front of Kennedy. He had an eight shot low caliber pistol, which he fired. He did hit Paul Shrade, who was standing next to Kennedy. But he did not hit Kennedy. Kennedy, according to the medical evidence and eye witnesses was killed from shots to his back and to the back of his head.

This was confirmed to me years ago by a distinguished journalist and documentary film maker who was standing just behind Robert Kennedy when he was shot. He told me that he felt the bullet that hit Kennedy go by his ear and saw its impact. He wrote a full report for the FBI and despite his credentials was never contacted by the investigation.

Now, last Wednesday, 48 years later, Paul Shrade has presented ironclad evidence at the parole hearing of the now 71 year old Sirhan Sirhan that Robert Kennedy was shot by someone else from the rear, not from the front where Sirhan Sirhan was standing.

You can read Paul Shrade’s statement here:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44184.htm 

Of course, the presstitute media will say that Paul Shrade, who was himself shot when Kennedy was assassinated, is a “conspiracy theorist.” Remember: a conspiracy theorist is anyone who on the basis of hard evidence challenges a government that blames its crime on an innocent third party.

At the time of Robert Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA was conducing mind control experiments. Experts think that Sirhan Sirhan was one of those under the CIA’s control. This would explain why Sirhan Sirhan has no memory of the event.

President John F. Kennedy had experienced in the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer a high level of insubordination. Lemnitzer showed in White House meetings contempt for the president. When Lemnitzer brought Kennedy the Northwoods Project to shoot down American citizens in the streets of America and to blow American airliners out of the sky in order to place the blame on Castro so that the US could invade and achieve “regime change,” a popular term of the George W. Bush regime, in Cuba, President Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as chairman and sent him to Europe as head of NATO.

Kennedy did not know about Operation Gladio, an assassination program in Europe run by NATO and the CIA. Communists were blamed for Operation Gladio’s bombings of civilians in train stations in order to erode communist political influence, especially in Italy. Thus, Kennedy’s way of getting rid of Lemnitzer put Lemnitzer in charge of this program and gave Lemnitzer a way to get rid of John Kennedy.

Anyone who thinks that democratic governments would not kill their own citizens is uninformed beyond belief. If, dear reader, you are one of these gullible people, please go to the Internet and become familiar, for example, with Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

US Senator Sanders is a straight­-talking politician of immense experience and integrity, unmatched by his competitors on both sides of congress. Furthermore, and most importantly, he is NOT FOR SALE to any lobby, never mind a lobby acting for a foreign government.

And that is an essential factor why so many Americans are confident he will be elected the 45^thPresident of the United States of America to succeed Barack Obama.

Senator Sanders served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was re-elected with 71% of the popular vote. During the 2016 presidential primaries, Sanders became the first self-described democratic socialist and first Jewish American to win a presidential primary of a major party, namely the New Hampshire primary.

Now, read about the political machinations of his increasingly desperate competitor, the Clinton family:

Public records show that Bill Clinton earned a total of $549,999 in four speeches to the Jewish National Fund, JNF. The disclosures do not mention the JNF’s most generous fee. JNF provoked an outcry within pro-­Israel circles when it transferred half a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation through the Peres Academic Center to pay for a single speech by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton later said he donated his large fee back to the Peres Academic Center, but there are lingering questions about where all the money went, including funds from the JNF.

Formed in 1901, JNF has spent over a century driving Palestinians off their land, including through the creation of the paramilitary force euphemistically named the Green Patrol. Former JNF director Yosef Weitz outlined detailed plans for the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, demanding that their villages be destroyed and they “be harassed continually” to prevent them from returning. 

A torrent of familiar propaganda has flooded the airwaves as the imminent collapse of Washington and its regional allies’ proxy terrorist forces in Syria approaches. Predicated on “humanitarian concerns,” global audiences are reminded of the torrent of lies, fabrications, and deceit that preceded NATO’s military intervention in Libya – a military intervention that has since left the North African nation utterly destroyed, perpetually divided, and large swaths of its territory under the control of Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

Virtually all headlines across the West now feature dramatic images of refugees, and children in particular, used for propaganda purposes to suggest the urgent need for Western military intervention. CNN’s article, “Aleppo siege marks dramatic upheaval on Syrian battlefield,” leads with the sentence:

The images from Aleppo, Idlib and Syria’s border with Turkey can be described in one word: despair.

The Guardian’s article, “Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees remain stranded at Turkish border,” claims:

Tens of thousands of Syrians fleeing a Russian-backed government advance on Aleppo have remained stranded near the Turkish border over the weekend, with no sign that the authorities in Ankara will respond to mounting international pressure to allow in more refugees uprooted by the escalating war.

The New York Post’s overly dramatic headline, “Obama caves on Syria, does nothing to help innocent civilians,” is followed by:

Just weeks after Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about a “new initiative” on Syria, details are emerging about what that really means: Handing over the Middle East to the United States’ adversaries.

Far from informing audiences, the flood of propaganda goes from absurd to surreal, aimed at provoking emotions, at persuasion, and at establishing a pretext for already long-ago, predetermined interventionism, the results of which are already on tragically stark display in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently Libya.

Despite the obvious truth behind interventions elsewhere – that they were intentionally designed to divide and destroy, not lift up or aid the people interventionism was used upon – the West remains committed to once again foisting this ploy upon the world, convinced it is still a viable strategy.

NATO’s Proposal for Syria Already On Display in Libya 

The flood of propaganda emanating from the West has one purpose –  to justify a US-backed, Turkish-led offensive into Syrian territory to carve out long-sought after “safe zones” within which the West would protect the battered remnants of their terrorist proxy forces. The West is claiming “refugees” languish on the border, that Turkey cannot accept any further refugees, and that the only solution is invasion.

The lies, one part predicated upon “humanitarianism,” one part upon allegedly fighting “ISIS,” have in reality long ago been laid to rest and well understood by an increasingly astute global audience. This is in part thanks to NATO’s own handiwork, on constant display in the North African nation of Libya, still smoldering in the wake of NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” there.

Despite NATO intervention, Libya remains a veritable firestorm of chaos – not only constituting a continued humanitarian disaster – feeding directly into Europe’s mounting migrant crisis – but also has become a safe haven and base of operations for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. In fact, in hindsight, it is clear that NATO intentionally armed and funded these very groups in their bid to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi.

The US State Department would even find itself in the long-established extremists hotbed of Benghazi, helping traffic weapons and fighters onward to Syria before the US consulate was attacked and US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens killed – the terrorists biting the hand that fed.

Syria – should NATO-member Turkey intervene – will result in a much larger conflagration than Libya, resulting in many more refugees in reality flowing into Turkey and then onward to Europe, than the numbers the West is claiming in fiction now.

ISIS is Based in Turkey – Fight Them in Turkey  

Syrian ground forces, bolstered by Hezbollah fighters and Iranian advisers, and backed by highly effective Russian airpower, have cut off terrorist supply lines leading from NATO-member Turkey’s territory. This not only includes so-called “moderate” terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and its regional affiliate, the Al Nusra Front, but also ISIS itself.

The same CNN claiming Syria and Russia are responsible for the current crisis, admitted in their article, “You thought Syria couldn’t get much worse. Think again,” that (emphasis added):

To the east of Aleppo, Kurdish forces are, with American support, eyeing the remaining ISIS strongholds along the Turkish border — Jarablus and Manbij. The U.S. wants ISIS out, to remove its access to resupply of materiel and fighters from Turkey.

The question all of CNN’s readers should ask, and one any real journalist were there any at the media organization would have answered, is: “why if the US is stationed in Turkey, doesn’t it and its Turkish allies, NATO members since the 1950s, interdict and stop ISIS’ access to ‘resupply of materiel and fighters’ on the Turkish side of the border?”

The answer is as disturbing as it is obvious – the US and Turkey created ISIS, are arming and funding it to this very day, and are using the existence and atrocities of their own proxy forces as a pretext to further compound the misery, division, destruction, and humanitarian crisis in Syria, including the subsequent refugee crisis that has in turn affected surrounding nations and even as far as Europe and North America.

Indeed, the US, Turkey, and America’s allies among the un-elected, despotic Persian Gulf absolute monarchies, intentionally created ISIS and even admitted as much. It was not Russian media or Syrian state proclamations that pointed this out, but rather the United State’s own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in a 2012 report that revealed ongoing plans by this geopolitical axis to create what it at the time called a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State).

In the DIA’s leaked 2012 report (.pdf) it stated (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Image: Professor Tim Anderson

How a war is lost is a serious and dangerous business. After Henry Kissinger helped sabotage the 1968 Paris peace talks, for domestic political reasons, the War in Vietnam raged for another seven years. In the end Washington’s loss was more humiliating, and millions more lives were destroyed.

The Geneva process over Syria is in many respects different, because it is a charade. The NATO and Gulf monarchy sponsors pretend to support Syrian ‘opposition’ groups and pretend to fight the same extremist groups they created.

Yet the dangers are very real because the Saudis and Turkey might react unpredictably, faced with the failure of their five year project to carve up Syria. Both countries have threatened to invade Syria, to defend their ‘assets’ from inevitable defeat from the powerful alliance Syria has forged with Russia, Iran, Iraq and the better party of Lebanon.

It should be clear by now that every single anti-government armed group in Syria has been created by Washington and its allies. Several senior US officials have admitted the fact. Regime change has always been the goal. Nevertheless, the charade of a ‘War on ISIS’ goes on, with a compliant western media unwilling to point out that ‘the emperor has no clothes’.

Click image to order Prof. Tim Anderson’s book on Syria

Geneva 3 has actually brought some results. First, none of the NATO-backed ‘opposition’ groups managed to show a credible face. Second, and more importantly, the US and Russia kept talking and actually developed another de-escalation plan. It is not conclusive but it is encouraging.

The ‘moderate rebel’ masks are down, we now know who they are: the internationally proscribed terrorist group Jabhat al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) and its long term Salafist allies Jaysh al Islam (the Army of Islam) and Ahrar as Sham. The latter two are the remnants of the Syrian Salafist groups. In northern Syria they are also welded together by Turkey and the Saudis into the very non-moderate-sounding Jaysh al Fatah (the Army of Conquest).

These extremist groups represent very few in Syria, as MINT Press journalist Mnar Muhawesh pointed out in her editorial piece ‘The Syrian Opposition’s NATO Sponsored Apocalyptic Vision For Syria’: In ideology they are no different to ISIS.

(See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvq0JmzqR_8).

It may be stating the obvious to say that al Qaeda groups have poor negotiating skills. In any event, they proved it in Geneva. Losing on the battlefield they demanded capitulation in Geneva, then stormed out.

Foreign backed terrorists aside, who are the real Syrian opposition?

Firstly, they are the groups that created the 2005 Damascus Declaration but who sided with the state and the army in early 2011, when the Salafist insurrection hijacked the reform demonstrations.

Some of them like Haytham Manna and former minister Qadri Jamil appeared in Geneva. Others like the powerful Syrian Social National Party (SSNP) backed Bashar al Assad’s government, back in 2011.

Still others sat on the sidelines, frustrated at the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent hijacking of the reform movement. Sharmine Narwani’s piece at RT ‘Will Geneva talks lead right back to Assad’s 2011 reforms?’ illustrates this very well. As the Damascus Declaration made plain, most of the Syrian opposition rejected both foreign sponsorship and violent attacks on the state.

Second are the Syrian Kurds, who were open to foreign assistance but rejected attacks on the Syrian Army and state. They have received most of their arms from Damascus. Prefering to side with the Syrian Army than the Salafists, their presence in Geneva was not tolerated by Erdogan or his clients.

That left Russia and the USA to discuss their supposed common goals (destroying terrorists) while Erdogan and the Saudis seethed. The aims of the two big powers are worlds apart. Hat difference is seen in the loss of Washington’s proxies in Syria in face of the rise of the 4+1 (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah).

That shift, in turn, threatens to derail the Bush plan for a ‘New Middle East’. The US wanted to control the entire region, now it faces losing it all.

Russia for its part has pursued its own interests in the region, backing its allies in accordance with international law. Its use of air power in Syria followed the Syria-Iran-Iraq-Hezbollah accord on ground power forces. That is the force currently prevailing on Syrian soil.

The good news is that, despite these widely differing aims, Washington and Moscow have kept talking and managed a provisional agreement at Geneva, with three heads.

The first agreement is over humanitarian aid, which faces serious obstacles due to the series of sieges taking place. Some of these are al Qaeda groups’ sieges, such as that on Foua and Kafraya in the north; but increasingly they are becoming Syrian Army sieges on al Qaeda fighters who hole up in towns and cities, such as Madaya and Eastern Aleppo. Most ground aid is going in through the Government-supervised Syria Arab Red Crescent, but air drops are being organised for Deir eZorr, and some other places.

Second, there is a political process which (it has been agreed) must be exclusively between Syrians, unconditional and inclusive. Contrary to many outside reports, there is not yet any framework for this, nor plans for early elections. The Syrian position, backed by Russia, is that the Syrian constitution (and the legally mandated schedule of elections) prevails until the Syrian people vote to change it.

Finally the agreement on ‘cessation of hostilities’, due almost immediately, has a task force to oversee the details. This ceasefire does not apply to any group identified by the UN Security Council as a terrorist group. That immediately rules out ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra. The major obstacle here is that Russia wants Jaysh al Islam and Ahrar as Sham (which have both collaborated with al Nusra for many years) added to the UNSC list. If Washington agrees to this, they will virtually abandon their ‘moderate rebel’ option. There is no other force of substance on the ground. The Saudis and Erdogan would be furious.

How will the US manage these tensions? The Obama administration has always approached the Syrian conflict in an arms-length way, reminiscent of the CIA’s ‘plausible deniability’ over its death squads in Latin America. But credibility problems have grown and Washington does seem more concerned at finding a way out rather than risking a new desperate gambit. That would certainly lead to serious escalation, and without any guarantee of success.

Would Washington allow Erdogan and the Saudis to initiate a major escalation, without US approval? I think not. Obama resisted Saudi and Israeli provocations, when the Iran deal was imminent. Even Bush could not be provoked into a confrontation with Russia, when invited by Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili.

For its part, Russia is well prepared for a provocation across the Turkish border. Logic suggests that the losers must lose. But this is a dangerous time.

The past fifteen years has seen the United States and its allies engage in numerous military invasions and interventions in the Middle East. All of these operations have utilized strike aircraft, special operations forces and armed and unarmed UAVs as force multipliers. Warships that can provide a platform to transport and support small, combined arms units of strike aircraft, helicopter assault or amphibious assault infantry or marines, special operations units, and reconnaissance and attack UAVs are seen as an essential tool in prosecuting the low intensity conflicts of the future. Almost every nation with a maritime border and a viable navy on the globe has taken notice of these developments.

These Multi-role Naval Platforms or MRNPs, come in a number of different designs. Some of these designs optimize flexibility and provide a balance of command and control, strike aircraft, air and amphibious assault, or cargo space while others are designed to maximize the effect of only one or two of these capabilities. The LHD is the most balanced, and thus flexible of all of the MRNP designs. The LHD is the largest design, requiring the dimensions and space to accommodate a large number of aircraft, troops, light and heavy vehicles, cargo and amphibious assault craft.

The LPD is a well-balanced multirole vessel; however, on a smaller scale than the LHD. It has comparable flexibility, but at a much smaller scale it lacks the power projection capability of the LHD. Although their smaller size limits the scope of their operations, they gain the benefit of being able to operate more easily in littoral waters and are less costly to build and maintain.

The DDH is a relatively new adaptation of the MRNP. The DDH abandons all amphibious capabilities in favor of aircraft assault and aerial strike capability. The only two nations to build and operate DDHs are the United States and Japan. The JMSDF operates three DDHs currently, with a fourth vessel to enter operation in 2016.

It is obvious to see the benefits of these multirole vessels with their inherent flexibility, humanitarian support and power projection capabilities. The benefits are obvious, but why are so many vessels now being built in such a short span of time? These naval building programs are being driven by geo-political developments in two main regions of the globe, the Mediterranean and the Asia-Pacific. This is in direct relation to the wars of regime-change and disruption in the Middle East and the U.S. “Pivot to Asia” and the disputes over contested areas in the East and South China Seas.

Although Russia was denied the two Mistral Class vessels, Vladivostok and Sevastopol when France reneged on the deal in 2014, Russia immediately made it clear that it will acquire indigenously designed and built vessels of similar pattern. These vessels would have proven of decisive value in supporting the Russian intervention in Syria. The two vessels were instead sold to Egypt. It is yet unclear how Egypt will employ these vessels in the future, but may aim to use them in bolstering the Saudi led military intervention in Yemen. Turkey entered into a contract with DCNS to build an LPD based on the Juan Carlos I LHD pattern in the summer of 2015.

The accelerating acquisition of MRNPs in the East and South East Asia regions is the most alarming. With China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia and the United States all rapidly building and commissioning these vessels in high numbers over the past ten years, it could reasonably be said that there is a naval arms race occurring in proportion to developments related to the South China Sea Crisis.

China has built four Type 071 LPDs of a total of six planned vessels, and has designed LHDs that have a displacement of 40,000 tons. Other claimants to disputed islands and waters in the South China Sea have been encouraged and supported by the United States in their efforts to acquire LPDs to back up their territorial claims with naval power. As the United States accuses China of engaging in a massive military build-up, it must be noted that the United States operates more of these multi-role vessels than all of the major world navies combined.

As the crises in the Middle East and East China and South China Seas continue to escalate, it is increasingly probable that those nations involved will decide to use these newly acquired vessels for the purposes of power projection, deterrence or in response to military provocation. Considering the increasing brinkmanship and saber-rattling between the United States and China, the irresponsible and destabilizing military actions of Turkey against its neighbors, and the recklessness of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, the odds that these powerful new naval tools will be used increases with each passing day.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

The French state television France 2 has shown a news report criticizing Moscow’s anti-terror campaign in Syria, but used images of Russian airstrikes not to talk about Moscow’s efforts, but to illustrate achievements of the US-led coalition instead.

According to RT in French, the report showing the videos released by Russian Defense Ministry, while the French reporter was talking about US airstrikes, was aired on February 4.

Posted by Allt om Irak & kriget mot ISIS – Iraq news & the war against ISIS on Sunday, February 7, 2016

The French report on anti-terrorist operations in Syria and its Aleppo province first featured a short story strongly criticizing airstrikes carried out by the Russian Air Force in the region. The journalist then proceeded to tell the audience about the objectives of the “minimum civilian casualties” western operation, led by the United States.

“The planes of the US coalition have a hard time finding targets to destroy,” the reporter was saying, while images of the Russian airstrikes were broadcast.

Having just praised the accuracy of US airstrikes, the reporter pointed to the video on screen, which showed the footage of Moscow’s anti-terror op, released by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Commenting how “targets are very difficult to find” and telling the audience how the US and its allies have been destroying terrorist training camps, command centers, ammunition depots and oil facilities, the French channel kept showing Russian footage of its efforts in Syria.

This is not the first time videos from Russia’s anti-terror campaign in the Middle East have been used by western media to depict airstrikes by the US-led coalition. The Defense Ministry has repeatedly pointed out such cases, saying they were partly due to the coalition’s reluctance to share more information about its actions.

Unlike the Russian anti-terror operation command in Syria, the US-led coalition has not organized coverage for journalists in the region, ministry spokesman has said, giving the example of Euronews TV channel having used Russian Air Force footage while airing a comment by a representative of US Central Command on the coalition successes.

Earlier, American public television used Russian objective control videos – which showed Sukhoi bombers targeting Islamic State oil facilities – with a voiceover praising US attacks, the Defense Ministry said.

This week’s Global Research News Hour is a fund-raiser for host radio station CKUW 95.9FM.

It was broadcast live on Friday February 12.. 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:15)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The program featured plentiful appeals for listener donations.

Host Michael Welch was assisted in these appeals by Iraq War Resister and author Joshua Key, political activist and writer Roger Annis, and local media personality Dave Mcleod. The program also included clips of interviews with journalist Lesley Hughes and FBI Whistle-blower and author Sibel Edmonds.

The program also featured music by Phil Ochs (Cops of the World), Talking Heads (Crosseyed and Painless), and Chumbawumba (Bella Ciao!)

With Fundrive 2016 now officially ended, anyone wishing to contribute to CKUW may do so through the website fundrive.ckuw.ca (you can find Global Research News Hour in the drop down menu under ‘Pledge Options.’ Please note, tax receipts are only honoured for Canadian residents. Out of town residents must include instructions for delivery of incentives by mail.)

Donations are also acceptable through the GLOBAL RESEARCH website.

Listeners of the Global Research News Hour are encouraged to support CKUW as well as partner community radio stations which air the Global Research News Hour.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

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.

If there was any question as to whether the Snyder administration was more concerned about their public image or public health, this should provide a definitive answer.

Adding to controversy over what top officials knew and when regarding Flint’s water crisis and resulting health epidemic, emails obtained by the Flint Journal suggest that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told state officials to suppress lead testing results, both from local health officials and the community, while they figured out how to present the information to the public.

The emails, which are from October and November 2015 and were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include correspondence by Jim Henry, Genesee County’s environmental health supervisor, to county Health Officer Mark Valacak, and correspondence between Henry and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Laboratory Director George Krisztian.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who, according to emails obtained by the Flint Journal, ordered MDEQ to hold on to lead testing results until they figured out how to present the information to the public. (Photo: Michigan Municipal League/flickr/cc)

They “show growing frustration on the county’s part as it attempted to obtain information from the DEQ,” the Journal reports.

Testing on buildings within the Flint School District began on Oct. 2, and Snyder gave a press conference Oct. 8 admitting that lead levels exceeded federal limits. At one school, Freeman Elementary School, levels were six times higher than federal limits.

From the Journal:

“MDEQ explained that the Governor prohibited releasing all Genesee County lead results until after the press conference,” wrote Jim Henry,Genesee County’s environmental health supervisor.

Henry, in an interview Wednesday, said county officials didn’t learn of the test results until they were distributed following a press conference.

“They should have alerted the schools and they didn’t,” Henry said.

Henry and DEQ officials held a meeting Oct. 16, and

[a]ccording to an Oct. 18 email Henry wrote to county Health Officer Mark Valacak summarizing the meeting, DEQ apologized for not releasing school lead results in a timely manner and claimed they were ordered by Snyder to delay the release.

And on Nov. 3 Henry sent an email to Krisztian requesting all testing results for water at Freeman, as further testing had been done there during the end of October, but that request was denied. Krisztian said that the samples from Oct. 24 presented an “incomplete picture of the plumbing system” and that samples taken Oct. 31 would not be available until Nov. 4.

“I am hoping to either have a conference call or a meeting in Flint with all the partners to review the results and discuss how we will present the information to the public,” Krisztian wrote in the email.

If there was any question as to whether the Snyder administration was more concerned about their public image or public health, this should provide a definitive answer.
—Lonnie Scott, Progress MichiganThe governor’s office responded to the reporting by stating that it “unequivocally denies [the] allegations” that it withheld information.

The statement adds: “On Friday, Oct. 2, the day after learning about elevated lead levels in in the city, Snyder responded aggressively with an action plan that included testing the water in the schools and distributing filters.”

However, redacted emails released last month by the governor indicate that his administration was informed of problems with Flint’s water many months before, as early as Feb. 2015, while those distributed filters may not be effective enough to bring down lead levels to the safety threshold for some homes.

“If there was any question as to whether the Snyder administration was more concerned about their public image or public health, this should provide a definitive answer,” said Lonnie Scott, executive director of Lansing-based watchdog group Progress Michigan, in response to the new reporting.

“Damage from lead poisoning is irreversible,” Scott added. “Delaying the decision to alert the community to high levels of lead in their water for even a day is too long. The decision to delay the release of critical lead test information is a decision that children and families in Flint will have to live with for the rest of their lives.”