UN Rules Julian Assange is “Arbitrarily Detained”

February 6th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has ruled that Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by the “democratic” governments of Sweden and the UK and is entitled to his freedom and compensation for detention by the two “democratic” governments. 

At the beginning of Assange’s arbitary detention, I said that the detention was in violation of the rights of asylum and is akin to the Soviet Government’s refusal to allow Cardinal Mindszenty free passage from the US Embassy in Hungary when he was granted political asylum by the US government. I pointed out that in our time Washington now behaves like the Soviet dictatorship half a century ago.

The illegal actions of the Swedish and UK governments were on the orders of Washington, the corrupt government of which is determined to get Assange for publishing leaked documents revealing the criminality and mendacity of the US government.

Washington and its UK vassal claim to be defenders of the rule of law, but, of course, both governments are lawless. We will see if the rulihg has any effect on the behavior of “the two great champions of liberty.” My prediction is that the gang of criminals in Washington will not allow its vassal governments to abide by the UN decision. I hope that I am wrong.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on UN Rules Julian Assange is “Arbitrarily Detained”

The Liberation of Aleppo from NATO-backed Terrorists

February 5th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

As Aleppo is finally encircled and begins the process of liberation from NATO-backed terrorists who have besieged and occupied parts of the city since 2012, and as Syrian forces backed by its allies overwhelm enemy fronts across the rest of Syria, desperation across the West is palpable.

“Peace talks” in Geneva have all but collapsed with the West and its collection of terrorists and client political fronts coming to the negotiation table with absolutely nothing to bargain with. The political component of the West’s proxy war has been ineffective and impotent almost from the beginning of the conflict in 2011. The militant component has been waning and upon Russia’s entry into the conflict, folded over and sent on the run.

Image: NATO-armed and funded terrorists encircled, starved and besieged Libyan cities like Sirte and Bani Walid on the ground as NATO airpower pounded them from above. The result was not humanitarian salvation, but absolute and enduring devastation.

Image: NATO-armed and funded terrorists encircled, starved and besieged Libyan cities like Sirte and Bani Walid on the ground as NATO airpower pounded them from above. The result was not humanitarian salvation, but absolute and enduring devastation.

This tenuous position has caused the West to once again dust-off its plans to invade and occupy Syrian territory along the Turkish-Syrian border – in the last remaining Islamic State-Al Qaeda supply corridor yet to be cut off by Syrian and Kurdish forces.

The call has manifested itself in both Turkish and Saudi military preparations, and now in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

Titled, “The diplomatic case for America to create a safe zone in Syria,” Nicholas Burns – U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2005 to 2008 – and James Jeffrey – U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to 2012 – proposed:

As the talks proceed, Obama and Kerry must also consider stronger measures to protect millions of civilians at risk, including establishing humanitarian corridors to reach those subjected to air assaults by the government and attacks by terrorist groups on the ground. Most important, we believe the Obama team will have to reconsider what it has rejected in the past: the creation of a safe zone in northern Syria to protect civilians, along with a no-fly zone to enforce it.

Of course, between this measure, and calls for the US to dump further resources into the defeated proxy terrorists on the ground in Syria, all Burns and Jeffery are proposing is the transformation of Syria into the “Libya of the Levant.”

Readers should recall that precisely the same prescription was applied to Libya in 2011. “Moderate rebels” were also armed, funded, and given aircover amid a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in order to overthrow the government. What resulted was an orgy of genocidal mass murder and  then the subsequent fracturing and destruction of the nation-state that was Libya.

Today, the Islamic State has carved out a stronghold within Libyan territory, while two Frankenstein governments wage war against each other and a myriad of warlords across an apocalyptic, war-torn wasteland.

Images: Libya's so-called freedom-fighting "moderates" literally just repainted their trucks after NATO's 2011 intervention, becoming ISIS' Libyan branch. The US now finds itself justifying yet another military intervention in Libya to fight the very terrorists it helped arm and put into power in 2011.

Images: Libya’s so-called freedom-fighting “moderates” literally just repainted their trucks after NATO’s 2011 intervention, becoming ISIS’ Libyan branch. The US now finds itself justifying yet another military intervention in Libya to fight the very terrorists it helped arm and put into power in 2011.

 Far from protecting civilians or addressing humanitarian concerns, the United States’ actions in Libya devastated an entire nation and has left it in what will likely be decades of deadly, disruptive conflict. So poor are the prospects of the Libyan people, many have fled to neighboring states as well as across the Mediterranean to Europe – hence a contributing factor to the ongoing “migrant crisis.”

America’s last option in Syria will likewise divide and destroy the country should it succeed. It will condemn tens of thousands of civilians to violent sectarian-driven deaths and drive hundreds of thousands more out of Syria into neighboring countries and onward to Europe to escape the predictable chaos.

The only “safe haven” that will exist will be for terrorist factions ranging from the “moderate” Al Qaeda groups the US and its allies openly back, to the Islamic State which the West more covertly backs. As Libya has been used to destabilize and launch operations against its neighbors, so too will Syria – being aimed at the remnants of the Iraqi government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and of course Iran itself.

Image: For those complaining ceaselessly about the migrants produced from the West's global meddling and warmongering, now would be a good time to speak up against attempted intervention in Syria by the West in a last ditch effort to collapse the government in Damascus and create division and destruction that will turn a steady stream of refugees into a cataclysmic flood.

Image: For those complaining ceaselessly about the migrants produced from the West’s global meddling and warmongering, now would be a good time to speak up against attempted intervention in Syria by the West in a last ditch effort to collapse the government in Damascus and create division and destruction that will turn a steady stream of refugees into a cataclysmic flood.

For the US, in its attempts to sell intervention in Syria, we have Libya to serve as a showcase of what will result. With the US and its European allies poised to re-invade Libya to fight the various militant groups they themselves put into power in 2011, how could the world possibly stand by and allow this axis of aggression to do likewise in Syria?

For Syria and its allies, they are already bleeding upon the battlefield to prevent this fate from passing. For Europeans and North Americans wringing their hands over the ongoing migrant crisis, now is an opportunity to speak up before it is intentionally, premeditatively compounded further still.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Liberation of Aleppo from NATO-backed Terrorists

Is Bernie Sanders a Socialist?

February 5th, 2016 by William Blum

“Self-described socialist” … How many times have we all read that term in regard to Vermont senator Bernie Sanders? But is he really a socialist? Or is he a “social democrat”, which is what he’d be called in Europe? Or is he a “democratic socialist”, which is the American party he has been a member of (DSA – Democratic Socialists of America)? And does it really matter which one he is? They’re all socialists, are they not?

Why does a person raised in a capitalist society become a socialist? It could be because of a parent or parents who are committed socialists and raise their children that way. But it’s usually because the person has seen capitalism up close for many years, is turned off by it, and is thus receptive to an alternative. All of us know what the ugly side of capitalism looks like. Here are but a few of the countless examples taken from real life:

  • Following an earthquake or other natural disaster, businesses raise their prices for basic necessities such as batteries, generators, water pumps, tree-removal services, etc.
  • In the face of widespread medical needs, drug and health-care prices soar, while new surgical and medical procedures are patented.
  • The cost of rent increases inexorably regardless of tenants’ income.
  • Ten thousand types of deception to part the citizens from their hard-earned wages.

What do these examples have in common? It’s their driving force – the profit motive; the desire to maximize profit. Any improvement in the system has to begin with a strong commitment to radically restraining, if not completely eliminating, the profit motive. Otherwise nothing of any significance will change in society, and the capitalists who own the society – and their liberal apologists – can mouth one progressive-sounding platitude after another as their chauffeur drives them to the bank.

But social democrats and democratic socialists have no desire to get rid of the profit motive. Last November, Sanders gave a speech at Georgetown University in Washington about his positive view of democratic socialism, including its place in the policies of presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: “I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production.”

I personally could live with the neighborhood grocery store remaining in private hands, but larger institutions are always a threat; the larger and richer they are the more tempting and easier it is for them to put profit ahead of the public’s welfare, and to purchase politicians. The question of socialism is inseparable from the question of public ownership of the means of production.

The question thus facing “socialists” like Sanders is this: When all your idealistic visions for a more humane, more just, more equitable, and more rational society run head-first into the stone wall of the profit motive … which of the two gives way?

The most commonly proposed alternative to both government or private control is worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Sanders has expressed his support for such systems and there is indeed much to be said about them. But the problem I find is that they will still operate within a capitalist society, which means competition, survival of the fittest; which means that if you can’t sell more than your competitors, if you can’t make a sufficient net profit on your sales, you will likely be forced to go out of business; and to prevent such a fate, at some point you may very well be forced to do illegal or immoral things against the public; which means back to the present.

Eliminating the profit motive in American society would run into a lot less opposition than one might expect. Consciously or unconsciously it’s already looked down upon to a great extent by numerous individuals and institutions of influence. For example, judges frequently impose lighter sentences upon lawbreakers if they haven’t actually profited monetarily from their acts. And they forbid others from making a profit from their crimes by selling book or film rights, or interviews. The California Senate enshrined this into law in 1994, one which directs that any such income of criminals convicted of serious crimes be placed into a trust fund for the benefit of the victims of their crimes. It must further be kept in mind that the great majority of Americans, like people everywhere, do not labor for profit, but for a salary.

The citizenry may have drifted even further away from the system than all this indicates, for American society seems to have more trust and respect for “non-profit” organizations than for the profit-seeking kind. Would the public be so generous with disaster relief if the Red Cross were a regular profit-making business? Would the Internal Revenue Service allow it to be tax-exempt? Why does the Post Office give cheaper rates to non-profits and lower rates for books and magazines which don’t contain advertising? For an AIDS test, do people feel more confident going to the Public Health Service or to a commercial laboratory? Why does “educational” or “public” television not have regular commercials? What would Americans think of peace-corps volunteers, elementary and high-school teachers, clergy, nurses, and social workers who demanded well in excess of $100 thousand per year? Would the public like to see churches competing with each other, complete with ad campaigns selling a New and Improved God?

Pervading all these attitudes, and frequently voiced, is a strong disapproval of greed and selfishness, in glaring contradiction to the reality that greed and selfishness form the official and ideological basis of our system. It’s almost as if no one remembers how the system is supposed to work any more, or they prefer not to dwell on it.

It would appear that, at least on a gut level, Americans have had it up to here with free enterprise. The great irony of it all is that the mass of the American people are not aware that their sundry attitudes constitute an anti-free-enterprise philosophy, and thus tend to go on believing the conventional wisdom that government is the problem, that big government is the biggest problem, and that their salvation cometh from the private sector, thereby feeding directly into pro-free-enterprise ideology.

Thus it is that those activists for social change who believe that American society is faced with problems so daunting that no corporation or entrepreneur is ever going to solve them at a profit carry the burden of convincing the American people that they don’t really believe what they think they believe; and that the public’s complementary mindset – that the government is no match for the private sector in efficiently getting large and important things done – is equally fallacious, for the government has built up an incredible military machine (ignoring for the moment what it’s used for), landed men on the moon, created great dams, marvelous national parks, an interstate highway system, the peace corps, social security, insurance for bank deposits, protection of pension funds against corporate misuse, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Smithsonian, the G.I. Bill, and much, much more. In short, the government has been quite good at doing what it wanted to do, or what labor and other movements have made it do, like establishing worker health and safety standards and requiring food manufacturers to list detailed information about ingredients.

Activists have to remind the American people of what they’ve already learned but seem to have forgotten: that they don’t want more government, or less government; they don’t want big government, or small government; they want government on their side. Period.

Sanders has to clarify his views. What exactly does he mean by “socialism”? What exactly is the role the profit motive will play in his future society”?

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, was a post-Cold War Fulbright Scholar in Warsaw:

“I asked my students to define democracy. Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy means a government obligation to maintain a certain standard of living and to provide health care, education and housing for all. In other words, socialism.”

We should never forget

The modern, educated, advanced nation of Iraq was reduced to a virtual failed state … the United States, beginning in 1991, bombed for much of the following 12 years, with one dubious excuse after another; then, in 2003, invaded, then occupied, overthrew the government, tortured without inhibition, killed wantonly … the people of that unhappy land lost everything – their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives … More than half the population either dead, wounded, traumatized, in prison, internally displaced, or in foreign exile … The air, soil, water, blood, and genes drenched with depleted uranium … the most awful birth defects … unexploded cluster bombs lying in wait for children to pick them up … a river of blood running alongside the Euphrates and Tigris … through a country that may never be put back together again … “It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis,” reported the Washington Post in 2007, that things were better before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.”

The United States has not paid any compensation to Iraq.

The United States has not made any apology to Iraq.

Foreign policy is even more sensitive a subject in the United States than slavery of the black people and genocide of the Native Americans. The US has apologized for these many times, but virtually never for the crimes of American foreign policy.

In 2014, George W. Bush, the man most responsible for this holocaust, was living a quiet life in Texas, with a focus on his paintings. “I’m trying to leave something behind”, he said.

Yes, he has certainly done that – mountains of rubble for one thing; rubble that once was cities and towns. His legacy also includes the charming Islamic State. Ah, but Georgie Boy is an artiste.

We need a trial to judge all those who bear significant responsibility for the past century – the most murderous and ecologically destructive in human history. We could call it the war, air and fiscal crimes tribunal and we could put politicians and CEOs and major media owners in the dock with earphones like Eichmann and make them listen to the evidence of how they killed millions of people and almost murdered the planet and made most of us far more miserable than we needed to be. Of course, we wouldn’t have time to go after them one by one. We’d have to lump Wall Street investment bankers in one trial, the Council on Foreign Relations in another, and any remaining Harvard Business School or Yale Law graduates in a third. We don’t need this for retribution, only for edification. So there would be no capital punishment, but rather banishment to an overseas Nike factory with a vow of perpetual silence. – Sam Smith

On March 2, 2014 US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Russia’s “incredible act of aggression” in Ukraine. “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.”

Iraq 2003 was in the 21st century. The pretext was completely trumped up. Senator John Kerry voted for it. Nice moral authority you have there, John.

On the same occasion, concerning Ukraine, President Obama spoke of “the principle that no country has the right to send in troops to another country unprovoked”.Do our leaders have no memory or do they think we’ve all lost ours?

Does Obama avoid prosecuting the Bush-Cheney gang because he wants to have the same rights to commit war crimes? The excuse he gives for his inaction is so lame that if George W. had used it people would not hesitate to laugh. On about five occasions, in reply to questions about why his administration has not prosecuted the like of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. for mass murder, torture and other war crimes, former law professor Obama has stated: “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards.” Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent on such grounds. It simply makes laws, law enforcement, crime, justice, and facts irrelevant. Picture Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers using this argument. Picture the reaction to this by Barack Obama, who has become the leading persecutor of whistleblowers in American history.

Noam Chomsky has observed: “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”

It appears that the German and Japanese people only relinquished their imperial culture and mindset when they were bombed back to the stone age during World War II. Something similar may be the only cure for the same pathology that is embedded into the very social fabric of the United States. The US is now a full-blown pathological society. There is no other wonder drug to deal with American-exceptionalism-itis.

Notes

  1. Senator Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism in the United States, November 19, 2015
  2. Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1994
  3. Washington Post, May 5, 2007
  4. William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, chapter 25
  5. New York Times, September 16, 2014
  6. Sam Smith of Maine, formerly of Washington, DC
  7. Reuters, March 3, 2014
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Bernie Sanders a Socialist?

Syrian Arab Army and Allies Cut Idlib Terrorists from Main Fuel Supplier, Russian Aerospace Forces Destroy Targets

February 5th, 2016 by South Front

Over last three days, on February 1-4, the Russian Aerospace Forces have performed 237 combat sorties destroying 875 terrorists’ targets in Syria. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) jointly with local militias are continuing to advance in the country’s northern part.

The Kurdish YPG have captured the villages of Khuraybah and Shatal az Ziyarah in the Aleppo province. Meanwhile, Kurdish fighters have advanced on the town of Dayr al-Jamal capturing its southern district. A mid-term goal of the YPG is to capture the cities of Azaz and Jarablus. This will expand the group’s control on the border with Turkish and cut some supply lines through it.

We remember, with lifting the siege from the towns of Nubbul and al-Zahraa, the SAA and its allies have cut a crucial terrorists’ supply line linking western Idlib with ISIS territory northeast of Aleppo city. Now, the Idlib terrorists are cut from their main fuel supplier.

The local sources report that in the north of the country the terrorists are leaving their positions and retreating to the Syrian-Turkish border closer to their supply lines. Thus, they expect to keep the combat capability of their formations.

The SAA and its allies are continuing to conduct military operations around Daraa to secure the strategic Damascus-Quneitra-Daraa triangle. The army is now exercising an offensive south of Daraa as well as northwest in the direction of Al-Quneitra. Clashes are also ongoing near Athman.

According to the reports, al-Nusra and Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham militants have organized a unit of teenagers who had finished a special training courses in the Idlib province. The oldest “cadet” is only 16 years old. This unit is designed to conduct terrorist attacks against civilians in Damascus, Homs and Latakia provinces.

On Feb.4, Russian Defense Ministry reported that the current activity at the Turkish-Syrian border suggest that Turkey prepares to invade Syria. According to Russian MoD, Turkey’s refusal to allow a Russian inspection flight over its territory is an attempt to conceal Ankara’s illegal military activity.

Turkey also intensified supplies of weapons and recruits to the terrorists in the northeastern regions of Syria.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Arab Army and Allies Cut Idlib Terrorists from Main Fuel Supplier, Russian Aerospace Forces Destroy Targets

Selected Articles: What is the Situation in Libya and Syria?

February 5th, 2016 by Global Research News

russia syria flagPeace Talks “Paused” after Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo

By Mike Whitney, February 05 2016

“This is the beginning of the end of jihadi presence in Aleppo. After 4 years of war and terror, people can finally see the end in sight.” — Edward Dark, Twitter, Moon of Alabama

Turkey-Syria-Conflict (1)Planned Turkish Invasion of Syria? In Close Liaison with Washington

By Stephen Lendman, February 05 2016

All Turkish military actions are approved by or complicit with Washington. Erdogan would never act unilaterally on his own, not even aggressively against his own Kurdish population, slaughtering civilians in cold blood.

Greece Refugee CrisisSyria’s Lost Generation

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, February 04 2016

Four million Syrian children have no means of getting to a school in safety because of the actions of marauding gangs of terrorists firing at the personnel of the Syrian Arab Army, police, ambulance and fire services.

Flag_of_Libya.svgLibya’s Instability Threatens Regional Security. Extended ISIS Terrorism in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa?

By South Front, February 04 2016

Though Syria and Iraq are the main theaters of global standoff and terrorist activity in recent years, there is another country that also draws the attention of the world powers: Libya.

VIDEO: Obama's Libya Action is Unconstitutional and CostlyObama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again

By Jack A. Smith, February 05 2016

Nearly five years after the U.S., Britain and France launched a bombing campaign against the Libyan government to bring about regime change, these same countries are contemplating a resumption of the war they thought was won when rebel forces they supported grotesquely tortured to death the country’s leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: What is the Situation in Libya and Syria?

Clinton, Petraeus, Snowden and Manning: The Tail of the Two Americas

February 5th, 2016 by Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo

The Obama Administration will hold the dubious distinction as the most hostile presidency towards whistleblowers in the history of the US. The administration’s unprecedented enmity towards individuals, such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, who were courageous enough to expose US war crimes, fraud and corruption was met with aggressive retaliation, imprisonment, exile and ham-fisted punishment.

Since 2009, the Administration has invoked the WWI-era Espionage Act that carries not only the possibility of life imprisonment but also the death penalty. The administration has sent a clear message that individuals who expose crimes will be severely punished while the perpetrators of the crimes will receive immunity.

Such is the situation that we find with Democratic presidential nominee Hilary Clinton who has admitted, under threat of derailing her campaign, of using a private server to receive and respond to over 1,300 sensitive emails while she was Secretary of State. Had Clinton been deemed a whistleblower or not a member of the 1% club she would have joined Manning in federal prison or perhaps Snowden in exile.  Instructively, Clinton severely criticized Edward Snowden for exposing state crimes:

“’If he wishes to return knowing he would be held accountable and also able to present a defense, that is his decision to make,’ the former secretary of state said in an interview with the Guardian. Clinton has called Snowden an ‘imperfect messenger’ who could have gone about his whistleblowing in a way that would have been less damaging to national security.”

Clinton later commented that it was “sort of odd” that Snowden fled to China and Russia, countries that have restrictive cyberpolicies. Furthermore, she said that his leaks helped certain terrorist networks.

But contradictions abound and fault lines are drawn regarding who the government prosecutes or who is allowed to run for the highest office in the land.  It was reported that a hacker in Serbia “had scanned Clinton’s Chappaqua server at least twice, in August and in December 2012. It was unclear from the reports whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton, although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com.” The domain names for Clinton’s e-mail address were clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com. Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton, managed the e-mail system but did not possess a security clearance [emphasis added] although her e-mails contained highly classified and security information.”

To make matters worse, a cybersecurity expert determined “that the [Clinton] server had amateur hour vulnerabilities.”

The State Department announced Friday (1/30/16) that it will not release 22 emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because they contain “top secret” information. This information comes three days before the critical Iowa caucuses. The State Department noted that 37 pages are now classified at the highest level of government classification.

Nevertheless, Chelsea Manning sits in a federal prison because she exposed war crimes against unarmed civilians in Iraq.

According to a recent Information Clearinghouse report:

“One of the top-secret emails she [Clinton] received and forwarded contained a photo taken from an American satellite of the North Korean nuclear facility that detonated a device just last week. Because Clinton failed to safeguard that email, she exposed to hackers and thus to the North Koreans the time, place and manner of American surveillance of them.”

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with:

“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,”

he said.

“Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo suggested that the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party:

“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out.”

On ABC’s “This Week” on (1/31/16), one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked. “There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said. Clinton was pressed during the interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which asserts that markings are “irrelevant… marked or unmarked … including oral communications.”

Another example of government benevolence towards their disciples is the case of General David Petraeus.  US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, signaling the encircling of the wagons around David Petraeus, announced this week that the US government has decided not to “impose further punishment” on the former US military commander and CIA Director for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his home. Petraeus allegedly shared those documents with a female “friend” who was writing his memoir. Unlike Manning, who is serving a 35 year sentence in Leavenworth, and Snowden, forced into exile in Russia, a year outside the familiar walls and perks of the federal executive club was deemed by political insiders as excessive “punishment” for Petraeus. Excessive punishment? Manning is serving 35 years in military prison and Snowden an undetermined amount of time in exile – that’s excessive punishment.

It is perhaps noteworthy to mention that Petraeus has recovered from his bout in federal service. He now serves as chairman of the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts of theKKR Global Institute.

What is remarkable about American democracy is the consistent and perpetual benevolence of the ruling class towards its loyal disciples. Many of these disciples belong to the 99% but characteristically identify and would literally kill on command for the 1%. The reward for their loyalty is straightforward: there is rarely a crime committed by these 1% wannabes that command punishment or rebuke. Police, as agents of the state are granted immunity and rewarded for killing young unarmed Black men and women, investment bankers who nearly tanked the US economy are rewarded with White House cabinet-level positions and generous bailouts from the pockets of working-class communities. Federal employees complaining of racism are eviscerated while their managers receive promotions. The message is clear, there are two America’s – one immune from any accountability and the other living in a political and economic purgatory.

Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is the author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated: No FEAR: A Whistleblowers Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA. She worked at the EPA for 18 years and blew the whistle on a US multinational corporation that endangered South African vanadium mine workers. Marsha’s successful lawsuit led to the introduction and passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act). She is Director of Transparency and Accountability for the Green Shadow Cabinet, serves on the Advisory Board of ExposeFacts.com and coordinates the Hands Up Coalition, DC.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Clinton, Petraeus, Snowden and Manning: The Tail of the Two Americas

Military Analysis: Taiwan (Republic of China) Armed Forces and US Strategy towards China

February 5th, 2016 by South Front

Despite the fact the official U.S. strategy towards China ignoring Taiwan issue, the island may easily become a flash point of the ongoing confrontation. The main stream media constantly disseminate reports that the Chinese military prepares to invade the island or, in light versions, conducts provocative military drills. In case of the further US-China confrontation in the Indo-Pacific regions, it’s possible to expect an attempt to use the island for strengthening of U.S military presence in the region. An aggressive activity of U.S. special services through Taiwan is also expected.

Beijing would much prefer to reintegrate Taiwan without having to resort to force, but by cultural, economic and political tools. Moreover, it already has a successful experience of lost territories reintegration: Macau and Hong Kong. However, it will be thoughtlessly to ignore the possible crisis in the China-Taiwan relations.

Taiwan Military

The Republic of China Armed Forces (ROC Armed Forces or Taiwan Armed Forces), with 290,000 active personnel, ranks at number 16 for the world’s largest number of active personnel, with 1,657,000 personnel in reserve. The Republic of China or Taiwan, with a population of over 23 million people, is a sovereign island state close to Mainland China. There have been many political status disputes going on for decades between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China. Both parties were engaged in a civil war since some time during the middle of the second Sino-Japanese War (1937). In the year 2015, the ROC Armed Forces increased their military budget from US$10.5 billion in 2012 to $10.7 billion, with an ever-growing military threat from the PRC ; the latter having over 2.3 million active military personnel as of 2012. Chairman Xi Jinping announced in 2015 that the PLA will be re-organized and downsized to 300,000 personnel, however, despite a military budget of US$141 billion ranking at number 2 in the world and out spending Taiwan 13 to 1 in terms of military budget.

The ROC Armed Forces encompass the Army, Navy (including the Marine Corps), Air Force, and the Military Police. It was founded in 1924 while it was based in mainland China and was the successor of the National Revolution Army or KMT Army/Kuomintang Army ; literally ‘The People’s Party Army’, which played a big role in overthrowing the Qing Dynasty with the help of Sun Zhong-Shan (Sun Yat-Sen), which ended China’s millenniums of autocratic rule. They also fought against the Imperial Japanese military during the second Sino-Japanese War (1937 – 1945). By the year 1947, with the introduction of the Constitution of the Republic of China, the nationalization of the army took place and the KMT party no longer had control of the military; hence, it became the National Revolutionary Army. It was soon renamed to the Republic of China Armed Forces; however, still retained similar insignia. With the end of the Second Sino-Japanese war in 1945, the ROC Armed Forces resumed hostilities with the Chinese Communist forces or the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), with the PLA later forcing the ROC Armed Forces and its political elites and allies to withdraw into exile to the island of Taiwan.

Much of Taiwan’s military equipment was procured from the United States of America, with many other western nations supplying military equipment. The ROC military is styled after western military forces, but most closely the U.S. military. Internally, the ROC military has a political warfare branch/department that tightly controls and monitors each level of the ROC military, reports directly to the General Headquarters of the ROC military and, if necessary, directly to the President of the ROC. This is a carry-over from the pre-1949 era, when the KMT and its army were penetrated by Communist agents repeatedly, which led to front line units defecting to Communist China. To strengthen their control over the military and prevent massive defection after retreating to Taiwan in 1949, Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Kuo (his son) employed tight control over the military, by installing political officers and commissioners down to the company level in order to ensure political correctness in the military and loyalty toward ROC leadership. This gave the political officers/commissars a great deal of power, allowing them to overrule the unit commander and take over command of the unit. Only in recent years has the political warfare department (due to cutbacks) reduced its power within the ROC military.

Army

Estimated 130,000 active duty personnel serve with the Republic of China Army (ROC)

Forces by role:

Aviation and Special Forces Command (航空特戰指揮部)

  • 101st Reconnaissance Battalion (better known as Sea Dragon Frogman, has a company station in Kinmen, Matsu, 3 in Penghu, and other frontline islands)
  • Special Forces Command (特戰指揮部) in charge of 3 training centers

Special Operation Command

  • 862 Special Operation Group (originally 862nd Special Operation Brigade, with 3rd, 4th, and 6th battalion that transferred back from aviation brigades)
  • 871 Special Operation Group (units’ unknown)

6th Army Corps (第六軍團指揮部): Northern Taiwan

  • 269 Mechanized Infantry Brigade
  • 542 Armor Brigade
  • 584 Armor Brigade
  • 21 Artillery Command
  • 53 Engineer Group
  • 73 Signals Group
  • 33 Chemical Warfare Group

8th Army Corps (第八軍團指揮部): Southern Taiwan

  • 333 Mechanized Infantry Brigade
  • 564 Armor Brigade
  • 43 Artillery Command
  • 54 Engineer Group
  • 75 Signals Group
  • 39 Chemical Warfare Group

10th Army Corps (第十軍團指揮部): Central Taiwan

  • 234 Mechanized Infantry Brigade
  • 586 Armor Brigade
  • 58 Artillery Command
  • 52 Engineer Group
  • 36 Chemical Warfare Group
  • 74 Signals Group
  • Artillery Group

Penghu Defense Command (澎湖防衛指揮部)

  • 1 Armored Battalion, 1 Armored Infantry Battalion, 1 Armored Cav Battalion, 1 mixed Artillery Battalion.
  • 9 active infantry brigades, 24 Reserve brigades (Activated only in time of war)

ROC Army’s former Army Missile Command was transferred to ROC Air Force in 2006.

Equipment by type:

MBTs 810: 460 M60A3 TTS (US-made upgraded M60 Patton); 450 CM-11(Taiwanese assembled M48 Patton)

MTs 150: 100 CM-12; 50 M48A3

LTs 50: M41 Walker Bulldog

APCs over 1000: CM-21, M113, V-150S

Light utility vehicles 2000 – 2500: Humvee

Arty (SPG and TOWED) 1665+: 75 M110A2, M109A2/A5, M108, M1, M115, M59 “Long Tom”, M101, M712 Copperhead, Kungfung VI, RT/LT-2000

Helicopters 233+: AH-64E Apache, AH-1W SuperCobra, Bell OH-58D Kiowa, OH-6A Cayuse, Bell TH-67A Creek, Boeing CH-47SD Chinook, UH-60M Black Hawk, AIDC UH-1H Iroquois

UAV 32: Chung Shyang II UAV

AA (Air to Air) 473: AIM-9 Sidewinder & AIM-92 Stinger

AA (Surface to Air) 230+: Sky Sword II, MIM-72/M48 Chaparral, Sky Sword I, M-1097 Avenger, Dual Mounted Stinger & FIM-92 Stinger

Anti-Ship weapons (numbers not known) Hsiung Feng III, Hsiung Feng II

AT 3896+: Hellfire AGM-114L, Hellfire AGM-114K3, Hellfire AGM-114C, Hellfire AGM-114M3, BGM-71 TOW-2A/B, FGM-148 Javelin, APILAS, M136, M72 LAW & Hydra 70

Cruiser Missiles (Future production): Yun Feng & Hsiung Feng IIIE

Navy

38,000 personnel serve with the ROC Navy (9000 of which are Marines) with 117 ships

Equipment by type:

Principal surface attack combatants 28:

Destroyer 4: Kee Lung Class

Frigate 24: 8 Cheng Kung class; 6 Chi Yang Class; 6 Kang Ding class; 4 Oliver Hazard Perry class

Submarines 2: 2 Chien Lung Class

Patrol and Coastal Combatants 44:

Fast Attack Missile and Patrol ship: 12 Ching Chiang-class patrol ship; 31 Kuang Hua VI-class missile boat; 1 Tuo Chiang-class Corvette

Marine Corps:

Brigades (formerly divisions)

  • 66th Marine Brigade ‘Vanguard’ ( 陸戰六六旅「先鋒部隊」 ), Taipei area, receiving M60A3TTS to replace M41 tanks [1]
  • 77th Marine Brigade ‘Iron Guards’ ( 陸戰七七旅「鐵衛部隊」 ), Garrison brigade, CCK and other area all over Taiwan
  • 99th Marine Brigade ‘Iron Force’ ( 陸戰九九旅「鐵軍部隊」 ), Kaohsiung

Groups

  • Amphibious Armor Group ( 登陸戰車大隊 );
  • 4 Amphibious Transport Squadrons ( 運輸中隊 ), 24+ tracks per squadron. 1st(AAV-7), 2nd(AAV-7), 3rd(LVT-5), 4th(LVT-5);
  • 2 Amphibious Artillery Squadrons ( 砲兵中隊 ), mortars, 1st(LVT-5) and 2nd(LVT-5).

Equipment includes (not including small arms):

Tanks: M60A3 TTS; M41 Walker Bulldog; AAV-P7A1 Amphibious assault vehicles; LVPT 5A1 Amphibious assault vehicles; CM-25 AFV (CM-21 with 1 x TOW launcher); M101 Howitzer; M109 Howitzer; BGM-71 TOW-2A/B; MK-153 SMAW; FGM-148 Javelin; M40A1 recoilless rifle; Stinger DMS; MIM-72/M48 Chaparral; Hughes OH-6 Cayuse

Air Force

Estimated 35,000 personnel serves with the ROCAF with 523 aircraft

Main Combat equipment by type:

  • Multi-role: 116 F-16A’s; 47 Mirage 2000s
  • Fighters: 23 F-5E/RF-5Es; 102 F-CK-1
  • Early Warning and Control: 6 E-2 Hawkeye
  • ELINT (Covert Electronic intelligence gathering): 1 C-130 HE
  • Maritime Patrol: 3 P-3C; 11 S-2
  • Reconnaissance: 2 Beech 1900

Air Defense

SAM: 3(7 orders coming) Patriot PAC-2; 6 Skybow; 19 MIM-23 HAWK

AD: 24 Skyguard

Forces by role:

Air Force Combatant Command

  • Weather Wing: Tamsui, New Taipei City
  • Communications, Air Traffic Control & Information Wing: Taipei City
  • Air Tactical Control Wing

Ground fixed and mobile long-range air search radar sites, consist of various TPS-117, TPS-75V, FPS-117, GE-592 and HADR radars, plus 1 PAVE PAWS (Phased Array Warning System) early warning radar site in northern Taiwan entered service late 2012.

Air Defense Artillery Command

  • 4 Air Defense Missile & Artillery brigades, 951st (Taipei), 952nd (Taichung), 953rd (Kaohsiung), 954th (Hualien)
  • 4 Air Defense Missile I-HAWK battalions, 621st, 622nd, 662nd, and 664th battalions, with Phase III and 7 Phase I batteries.
  • 1 TK-1/2 Air Defense Missile battalion, 951st Brigade, 611st battalion with 6 companies/batteries.
  • 1 Patriot PAC-2+ GEM/PAC-3 Air Defense/Anti-Ballistic Missile battalion, with 3 mixed companies/batteries that are all upgrading to PAC-3 standard, with 7 more PAC 3 companies/batteries on order.
  • 1 Skyguard Short Range Airbase Air Defense battalion, with 6 companies/batteries and radar sub units with OTO 35mm AAA
  • 2 Antelope Short Range Airbase Air Defense battalions, with unknown companies/batteries.
  • At least 2 AAA Air Defense Artillery battalions, with 40mm/L60 and 12.7mm AAA guns.

Air Defense Artillery Training Center: Pingtung

  • Target Service Squadron
  • Education Service Support Company
  • First training company
  • Second training company
  • Third training company
  • Education, Training & Doctrine Command

Military Police

Estimated 16,000 personnel serve with the ROCMP

From the 2006 National Defense Report, Republic of China Military Police performs:

Military functions:

  • Special security duties, including presidential protection,
  • Counter-terrorism operations,
  • Garrison security,
  • Enforce military discipline,
  • Support military operations,
  • Supportive functions in civilian affairs:
  • Execute military justice and law enforcement missions,
  • Maintain public security,
  • Adequately support regional disaster prevention,
  • Response, and ensure social stability and national security.

The ROCMP is responsible for enforcing military law, maintaining military discipline, providing manpower and support for the civilian police force, performing combat duty in times of emergency, providing security for certain governmental facilities such as the Presidential Palace, and performing counter-terrorism and VIP Protection Operations. In an event of a military conflict the ROCMP is responsible for the defense of Taipei, the capital city and political and financial hub of Taiwan.

ROC Armed Forces Strategy

Hypothetically speaking, the adversary for the ROC Armed Forces would be of the Peoples Liberation Army, and it goes without saying that the size of the PLA outnumbers the ROC Armed Forces in terms of military expenditure and size, and that would definitely put the ROC Armed Forces at a disadvantage in any possible conflict. However, mainland China does not actively seek to invade Taiwan. The Chinese military buildup is useful for intimidating Taiwan and would be necessary if a decision was made to invade. Military power could also be used in situations short of all-out war, such as a blockade or some other demonstration of strength. Taiwan’s defenses are different from most countries because of the nature of its strategic position. Few countries see the need for surface-to-air missiles in land-based silos, nearly four-dozen fast missile boats, and a mountain hollowed out to shelter fighter aircraft. Mainland China sees the island 110 miles away as a rogue province — one that is only separated temporarily. China has not only oriented a considerable amount of military force against Taiwan, but has also politically isolated the island internationally.

Geographic_Boundaries_of_the_First_and_Second_Island_Chains

Most Taiwanese locals would jokingly reveal to you that China has already invaded them with their hundreds and thousands of tourists and through countless aspects of commerce; however, one cannot avoid how Taiwan figures in China’s long-term strategic planning being part of the “First Island Chain”, the innermost defensive ring of islands that China considers essential for national defense. In the long term, controlling Taiwan is in China’s interests both to shield mainland China hypothetically from South Korea, Japan and the United States and as a springboard to operate into the “Second Island Chain”.

In an event of an invasion from the PLA, the ROC Armed Forces will be deploying a two-prong Naval and Air strategy:

Naval

The ROCN (Republic of China Navy), which had been the most neglected branch of the Taiwanese military, has been transformed into one of the most important due to the fact that there is a very high likelihood that the PLA would launch a Naval attack and lead an amphibious landing through the Taiwan Strait or perhaps from South China or East China Sea in any future conflict. With that in mind, the ROCN plays a major role in the overall defense strategy of Taiwan, because the ROCN  with support from the ROCAF can defeat an invasion fleet at sea. The sinking of a large portion of amphibious transports not only takes a large percentage of ground force out of action, but also permanently degrades the enemy’s amphibious capability.

The ROCN has 28 main surface combatant ships armed with capable and potent anti-ship weaponry. The largest ships in the fleet are the four 10,000 ton Kee Lung-class guided-missile destroyers which sport two Mk.26 twin surface to air missile (SAM) launch systems armed with Standard SM-2 Block IIIA surface-to-air missiles, two Mk. 45 127mm guns, four Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles and have a helicopter flight deck and hangar.

The eight Cheung Kung class guided missile frigates are a modified version of the long-hull Oliver Hazard Perry class. The class is armed with a Mk.13 missile launcher forward, capable of firing SM-1MR surface-to-air and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and a 76mm Oto Melara gun amidships.

The frigates also carry eight Hsiung Feng II anti-ship missiles, giving the small ships a powerful anti-ship capability. Each carries an S-70 Thunderhawk helicopter, an export variant of the SH-60B Seahawk.

Taiwan has eight destroyers of the former U.S. Knox class destroyer, now the Chi Yang class. The ships mount the original armament of one Mk. 45 127mm gun and one ASROC launcher. The Chi Yang class has also been retrofitted with ten SM-1MR surface-to-air missiles in external canister launchers. The ships each carry one MD-500 ASW helicopter.

Rounding out the large surface combatants are the Kang Ting-class frigates. A modification of the La Fayette design, the Kang Ting frigates mount one 76mm gun and a naval Chaparral missile launcher for air defense. Eight Hsiung Feng anti-ship missiles are carried, and typically one S-70 Thunderhawk helicopter.

Taiwan has made a significant investment in small, fast missile patrol craft designed to take on much larger Chinese surface and amphibious ships. Twelve missile patrol combatants of the Jing Chiang class were built , each one of 680 tons displacement fully loaded with a 76mm gun and mine-laying racks.

There are also 34 smaller ships of the 150 ton displacement Kung Hua VI project class. Ships of both classes are each equipped with four Hsiung Feng anti-ship missiles. This diminutive fleet collectively weighs just over 13,000 tons combined displacement, but altogether packs a total of 184 anti-ship missiles.

The ROCN’s submarine fleet consists of just four aging submarines. Two are of the U.S. Navy Tench class, the Hai Shih and Hai Pao. Both were launched toward the end of the World War II and are used as training vessels. The other two submarines, Hai Hung and Hai Hu, are a Dutch design of mid-1980s vintage. Displacing 2,600 tons submerged, they were upgraded in 2013 with Harpoon II anti-ship missiles.

Taiwan has a modest-sized amphibious force designed to move army and marine units by sea during wartime. Equipped with one Hsu Hai Class Dock Landing Ship (LSD), formerly the USS Pensacola, one Chung Cheng class LSD, formerly the USS Comstock, seven Chung Hai class Landing Ship Tank (LST-1), four Mei Chin class Landing Ship Medium(LSM-1) and twelve Ho Chin class Landing Craft Utility (LCU). The force can land up to four companies of ROC Marine Corps AAV-7A1 amphibious assault vehicles or main battle tanks, and two companies of infantry.

Air

Simultaneously, the ROCAF also plays a huge role in maintaining air superiority and in deterring PLA efforts to gain air superiority over Taiwan. Most ROCAF aircraft were state of the art when they were purchased in the 1990s; however, time and China’s air power buildup have eroded their technological edge, opening up the possibility that China could successfully contest air superiority over the island.

The ROCAF has 116 F-16 A/B Block 20 multirole fighters currently upgrading to F-16V with the AN/APG-83 radar, armed with AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. It also operates 47 Mirage 2000 multirole fighters, armed with Magic air-to-air missiles, and 23 F5-E/RF-5E fighters that are slowly being phased out of front line service. Taiwan’s main fighter inventory consists of 102 Ching-Kuo Indigenous Fighters, armed with locally developed Sky Sword II air-to-air missiles.

Taiwan’s fleet of support aircraft includes six E-2 Hawkeye airborne early-warning and air-control aircraft, upgraded with APS-145 radars. One C-130 Hercules transport was converted into an electronic warfare platform, while two ROCN S-70 Thunderhawks have been configured as signals intelligence collection aircraft.

The ROCN operates 20 S-2 Trackers as maritime patrol aircraft. Procured in the 1990s, these aircraft are to be replaced by a dozen P-3C Orions. The ROCN currently has 4 out of the dozen P-3C Orions on order, which will possibly be completed in the current year of 2016.

In the event of war, the ROCAF’s air bases will come under heavy air attack, both by aircraft and missiles. China’s Second Artillery Corps has an estimated 1,500 conventionally armed short range ballistic missiles, many of which will likely be used in the counter-air role. Estimates are that it would take 50 direct hits to close a ROCAF air base to air operations. The ROCAF is prepared to keep air bases open while under attack. Taiwan has the Rapid Runway Repair System, used by the U.S. Air Force, to repair runways damaged by enemy attack. The ROCAF also has the Port Arrest P-IV mobile aircraft arresting system for landing aircraft on damaged runways.

The ROCAF has invested considerable resources in hardening base facilities. Chiashan Air Base, on the island’s eastern coast, includes a hollowed-out mountain that serves as a refuge for up to 100 Mirage 2000-5 and F-16 fighters. Two airfields serving the base are both at least 7,500 feet long. Chiashan is also a designated command post for counterattacks mounted by Taiwan against invading forces.

A second facility buried inside a mountain is Hengshan Command Center. Located on the outskirts of Taipei, Hengshan was completed in 1982 and serves as the national military command center in both peace and war. In wartime, it serves as the seat of Taiwan’s civilian government.

The air force also operates the nationwide air defense network, with 11 early warning sites overall. Main air defense is provided by Taiwan’s indigenously produced Tien Kung II surface-to-air missiles. Radar guided, the Tien Kung II has a range of 125 miles and is deployed at six bases, four on Taiwan and two on nearby island groups.Each base includes 80 missiles in underground silos and two target illumination radars. A range of 125 miles means Tien Kung missiles could theoretically engage targets over the mainland. Taiwan also has seven Patriot missile batteries, which are converting from PAC-2 to PAC-3 status. Patriot missiles are concentrated around the cities of Taipei, Greater Taichung and Greater Kaohsiung.

Asymmetrical Forces

Smaller defense budgets and an overwhelming Chinese conventional force have moved Taiwan toward asymmetrical systems and an anti-access, area denial capability all its own. Rather than matching China ship for ship and plane for plane, Taiwan is fielding systems that imperil China’s ability to operate in the Taiwan Strait.One such example is the Hsun Hai, or “Swift Sea” program of small missile corvettes. The catamarans are capable of 38 knots and designed to have a minimal radar signature. Armed with eight Hsiung Feng II and Hsuing Feng III anti-ship missiles, the Corvettes have been dubbed “Carrier Killers” by the local Taiwanese media. The first, Tuo Chiang is currently in service with 12 more ships planned.

Submarines stand to be a key pillar of Taiwan’s asymmetrical approach. “After Taiwan has lost air and sea control, it’s the subs that will still be able to attack groups of amphibious landing aircraft,” Wang Jyh-perng, ROCN Reserve Captain told the Asia Times in 2011. However, no diesel-electric submarine builder will sell Taiwan new submarines, as they face a great deal of pressure from the Chinese government.

In January of 2014, ROCN headquarters announced a 15-year upgrade plan for naval forces. Under the plan, a local shipbuilder has been directed to determine the feasibility of locally built submarines. As of 2015, many Taiwanese officials have spoken of their intent to secure international assistance before developing an indigenous submarine. However, the U.S. has not constructed a diesel electric submarine since the late 1950’s, but could provide design engineers.  Additionally, they could work with Japanese shipbuilders who make excellent diesel electric submarines.  The U.S. could also relax export controls on items needed to build the submarines. Several U.S. defense contractors have solid working relationships with Taiwan. In 2002, when the U.S. Navy discussed options with the ROCN, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon all expressed interest in being the prime contractor. All of these companies have maintained interest in Taiwanese defensive capabilities. Working with a U.S. company to design an ROCN submarine could set Taiwan on an accelerated path towards development while giving Taiwan control over production and manufacturing.

Another option is to use the blueprints of an existing model and customize it to fit the ROCN’s requirements. Japan is both capable and possibly willing, with the right encouragement, to assist Taiwan in constructing diesel-electric submarines. A transnational industrial cooperation with Japan could help strengthen the security partnership between defense ministries that face the same threat.

Enlistement

Another trend that is complicating Taiwan’s defense strategy is the planned transition from a conscript military to an all-volunteer military. Social trends are undermining the existing draft system, as the system is growing unpopular and demographics are lowering the pool of potential manpower. All volunteer forces have dramatically higher personnel costs, and Taiwan’s defense budget has remained low. If Taiwan cannot offset these costs with additional defense spending, it seems inevitable that the military will face a new round of reductions.

Conclusion

The eyes of the Chinese world are on Taiwan’s recently elected, first female President Cai Yingwen, who will take office on 20th May, 2016 and as to how she will be handling cross-strait affairs. Regardless, Taiwan is playing a difficult hand. Seceding from the mainland outright would likely invoke a military response and anger its strongest ally and supplier, the United States of America. Matching China militarily is no longer possible, as China out-spends Taiwan in military budget by a factor of 13 to 1. A hardline stance is increasingly looking unviable.

On the other hand, strong ideological differences make reunifying with China to be unpalatable for most Taiwanese. Taiwan is taking the middle ground of trying to maintain its economic position and higher standard of living relative to China, while deterring invasion by tailoring its military to specific threats and through other diplomatic negotiations with China. Taiwan may not be spending as much on defense as it should, but it has accepted the strategic realities.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Military Analysis: Taiwan (Republic of China) Armed Forces and US Strategy towards China

China and the US: Big Brothers-In-Law? Beijing’s New “Anti-Terrorism Law”

February 5th, 2016 by Boen Wang

Originally published by WhoWhatWhy

Paging George Orwell…

“Big Brother” is getting even bigger in China. In a development that the author of “1984” would surely have appreciated, China recently passed an “anti-terrorism law” that seems fundamentally an excuse for a clampdown. It also eerily mirrors calls by US officials for access to encrypted communications.

China’s law requires telecommunications and other companies to decrypt and hand over data related to “terrorist” investigations.

And who is a “terrorist?” Just about anyone.

“Terrorism” is so vaguely defined in the law, prosecutors could use it to criminalize perfectly innocent activities,” Patrick Poon, a Hong Kong-based researcher for Amnesty International, told WhoWhatWhy. “These could include posting on social media about sensitive topics, reporting on alleged terror attacks, or any behavior deemed upsetting to “social stability.”

Failure to hand over the decrypted data could result in fines of up to 500,000 yuan (a bit over 76,000 USD) and imprisonment of up to 15 days.

Human rights groups have roundly criticized the law for the broad powers it confers to the Chinese government.

It’s not just individuals who are in danger. A legal review from Lexology notes that the Chinese law does not define the terms “telecommunications operators” or “internet service providers.” This means almost any company, Chinese or foreign, that provides any technological service could be targeted.

China, US Sing the Same Tune on Encryption

Explaining why his government needs such wide-ranging access to Internet communication, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said:

It is imperative for us to prevent and crack down on cyber-enabled terrorist crimes…. teleservice operators and network service providers shall provide technical support such as technical interface and decryption to public and national security organs in their missions to prevent and investigate terrorist activities.

Sounds familiar? Compare it with the congressional testimony of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey:

[C]hanging forms of Internet communication and the use of encryption are posing real challenges… The United States government is actively engaged with private companies to ensure they understand the public safety and national security risks that result from malicious actors’ use of their encrypted products and services.

Poon emphasized that the parallels go only so far: US citizens have “many more legal protections and mechanisms that allow you to challenge the government’s actions.”

“If you’re trying to find a needle in a haystack, you don’t add more hay first,” he said. “Unless you want to turn into a mass surveillance police state, being able to look at everything is not going to get you very far. Targeted stuff, narrowing in on the right people, is more likely to get you what you really need.”

But the parallels are there. Last March, President Barack Obama criticized a draft version of China’s anti-terrorism law for its unseemly overreach. He said US tech companies would not be willing to “turn over to the Chinese government, mechanisms where they could snoop and keep track of all the users of those services.”

So Obama should not have been surprised when US tech executives resisted calls by American law enforcement officials for just such mechanisms. Apple CEO Tim Cook, for example, has repeatedly defended the need for unbreakable encryption.

Yet the drumbeat for granting US spy agencies exceptional access to internet communications continues.

“Keys Under Doormats”

In more recent congressional testimony, Comey argued for allowing the government a so-called backdoor into all nominally encrypted Internet communications. He dismissed the “folks who have said… we’re going to break the internet, or we’ll have unacceptable insecurity if we try to get to a place where court orders are complied with” and insisted that encryption is “not a technical issue.”

Steven Bellovin is one of those folks who insists that encryption is a technical issue. A computer science professor at Columbia, Bellovin co-wrote a paper with 14 other prominent academics in July called “Keys Under Doormats.” The paper detailed the technical infeasibility of “exceptional access mechanisms,” in addition to the thorny societal and logistical questions such mechanisms would raise.

“We just don’t think people can get this right,” Bellovin told WhoWhatWhy. “It’s just a very, very hard problem.”

Attempting to implement exceptional access mechanisms, according to the paper, would undermine cybersecurity by reversing normal security measures. At risk would be so-called  forward secrecy (an added security measure that prevents intruders from decrypting communications) and authentication (think of the little padlock icon that appears in your web browser when you, say, log into your bank account).

In addition, any government backdoor would likely introduce “unanticipated, hard to detect security flaws” due to the sheer “complexity of today’s Internet environment.”

These arguments have not dissuaded American officials from trying to follow in China’s footsteps by insisting on exceptional government access to all encrypted communications — of course always in the name of fighting terrorism and with no acknowledgement that this access could ever be abused.

Whether or not China will be able to implement its law on a technical level remains to be seen.

Bellovin, however, thinks US intelligence agencies should focus on analyzing pre-existing data rather than on trying to collect even more data.

“If you’re trying to find a needle in a haystack, you don’t add more hay first,” he said. “Unless you want to turn into a mass surveillance police state, being able to look at everything is not going to get you very far. Targeted stuff, narrowing in on the right people, is more likely to get you what you really need.”

In George Orwell’s “1984,” the world is divided into three mega-states that are in constant conflict although they are alike in exercising cradle-to-grave control over their citizens.

When it comes to an appetite for keeping an eye on everyone, Big Brother knows no nationality.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and the US: Big Brothers-In-Law? Beijing’s New “Anti-Terrorism Law”

List of Withheld JFK Assassination Documents

February 5th, 2016 by Russ Baker

First published by WhoWhatWhy

Exciting news: WhoWhatWhy has obtained the complete list of 3,603 secret documents on the Kennedy assassination still being held by the US government. (Or, to be precise, what it admits to still holding.)

Now we can at least get a peek at what they have been hiding.

The list was obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request by FOIA specialist Michael Ravnitzky, who alerted us.

The complete list is below. You’ll note that some documents are briefly characterized by subject, while others are less clearly identified.

The government has promised to release as many documents as possible in October, 2017, the 25th anniversary of the JFK Records Act, in which Congress mandated that all efforts be made to release everything in Washington’s possession unless an overriding case can be made for withholding in the national interest.

Some — perhaps most — of these documents could be released at that time. Then again, they may be further withheld. The CIA in particular is likely to argue that some are just too sensitive to be made public.

Still, knowing their subject matter makes it easier to press for disclosure, and to hold the government accountable by insisting it justify any continued withholdings.

Those who wish to look at the list should be forewarned that it’s a bit like looking at hieroglyphics. Most of the names and brief references will mean something only to a very few.

Among the documents that caught our eye:

•  Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA “201 File.” 201 files contain personality assessments

•  Records on David Morales, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, William King Harvey and others considered by top researchers prime suspects for participation in the planning and implementation of Kennedy’s murder.

•  Documents on New Orleans oddball David Ferrie, District Attorney Jim Garrison, Jackie Kennedy, members of the Warren Commission staff, Jack Ruby, various anti-Castro Cubans and much much more.

•  Tax returns of Michael Paine, who with his wife Ruth provided housing and more for the Oswalds — Ruth also got Lee a job in the Texas School Book Depository — from which he purportedly shot Kennedy; Michael worked for the defense contractor Bell Helicopter.

Click here to view the full document (it’s a long one!)

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on List of Withheld JFK Assassination Documents

Legalising Cruelties: The Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention

February 5th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The High Court of Australia has done its occasional bit for refugees, though much of its legal reasoning has lead to inadvertent consequences.  During the Gillard years, it sank what would have been a notorious exchange of refugees with Malaysia (the “Malaysian Solution”) as one that was outside the scope of the Refugee Act and discretion of the minister of immigration.[1]  On other occasions, its reasoning has bafflingly concluded that infinite detention of refugees for security grounds on a hypothetical basis is entirely legitimate.

The legal fraternity, and various NGOs were therefore curious on where the High Court would stand on the issue of Australia’s own island gulag system, which received a considerable boost under the Abbott government from 2013.  It involved a case brought by a Bangladeshi woman whose imprisonment, her legal representatives claimed, had been “funded, authorised, procured and effectively controlled” by the Australian authorities.  This state of affairs, they contended, was beyond the government’s constitutional powers.  The legal team sought a declaration to that effect.

The majority of the Court held that s. 198AHA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorised the Commonwealth to detain the Bangladeshi plaintiff, who had been deemed “an unauthorised maritime arrival” as defined by the Act.[2] The Migration Act also permits the relocation of such arrivals to regional processing countries, of which Nauru is one.  Such language conceals the essentially squalid nature of the process.

The wording of the Memorandum of Understanding (the so-called second MOU) is worth recounting.  Entered into on August 3, 2013 between Canberra and the Nauru authorities, it is packed with euphemistic suggestion.  “Administrative arrangements” were to be established to deal with “transferees” whose refugee claims were being processed.

The Nauru government would, in the words of three of the judges, appoint “an operational manager, to be in charge of the day-to-day management of the Centre”.  The Australian government, in turn, “would appoint an officer as a programme coordinator, to be responsible for managing all Commonwealth officers and service contracts in relation to the Centre, including the contracting of a service provider to provide services at the Centre for transferees and to provide for their security and safety.”  The Australian government, during that time, would provide “garrison and welfare” services in the true spirit of imprisonment.

What the MOU effectively created was a structure inimical to the interests of refugees and asylum seekers. Everything was done to sanitise what effectively were de facto prison arrangements far from the Australian mainland, a direct subversion of the UN Refugee Convention.

It would, however, be sold as a warranted approach to dealing with asylum seekers who dared use the sea as an option to arrive in Australia.  There would be, for instance, a “Ministerial Forum” overseeing the implementation of the agreement; there would be a “Joint Working Group, chaired by the Nauru Minister,” meeting weekly to discuss matters arising with the Centre.

Most sinister of all was the role given to Transfield Services, a private security company that is central to Australia’s refugee policy.  It is Transfield that received the primary responsibility for supplying “garrison and welfare services” to transferees, a role that the High Court seems to treat like a minor community centre.  “Garrison services”, we are told in rather mundane fashion, includes security, cleaning and catering services.

Just to make matters a touch murkier, we are told that Transfield had, in turn, subscontracted its services to Wilson Security Pty Ltd.  Containing, and caging desperate human populations is a truly busy affair, and one that has involved a private sector eager to profit from it.

The Bangladeshi applicant’s legal team were to be disappointed.  The declaration was refused.  The court refused to disturb the nature of the second MOU between Australia and Nauru.  It had been authorised by s. 61 of the Australian Constitution.  (The section simply enumerates that executive power in the Australian Commonwealth “is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.”)

Furthermore, the conduct of the Commonwealth pursuant to the second MOU was held by the majority to be entirely consistent with the provisions of the Migration Act.  The wisdom of such executive power, one used to sanction the indefinite detention of asylum seekers and refugees offshore by other governments, was never questioned, shielded as it was by the law.

Having gotten what he wanted, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull resorted to the tinny humanitarianism that has masked a ruthless and questionable offshore detention program.  Stopping boat arrivals and conveying their human cargo to prison-like centres was for their own good.  Far better that than letting them meet a gruesome fate on the high seas.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) claimed that the ruling did not affect “Australia’s moral responsibility or its obligations to protect the rights of children in accordance with international human rights law.”  What had effectively taken place was a shift of responsibility “for this group of children and families to a developing state [Nauru] in the region.”[3]

The decision on Wednesday means that 267 asylum-seekers, including 29 children and 33 babies born in Australia, can be deported to Nauru.  A system of dysfunction and legalised rendition continues being perpetuated.  The High Court has shown once again the enormous weaknesses within a legal system that lacks a higher enshrined law, one that fetters, rather than enhances, Parliamentary and executive discretion to harm others.  Even more disturbing, it also suggests that such harm can be outsourced to foreign governments by accord.

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

Notes:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Legalising Cruelties: The Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention

Against Privatization: Canada Health Coalition Demands Funding for Hospitals

February 5th, 2016 by National Health Coalition

The 1960s were about much more than protesting the war in Vietnam. It was also a time of cultural upheaval as a new generation challenged capitalist values, including its shallow democracy, and environmental issues emerged both in the workplace and in the community. One response by the state in the core capitalist countries was to give increased prominence to the welfare state. From the mid-60s into the 1970s, the most significant expansion in the welfare state (particularly in Canada) occurred as major commitments were made to healthcare, education, and income security.

This ‘welfare state’, with its universal programs, came to be identified with security against the instabilities of capitalist markets, equality and progress. Whatever its limits, it was generally expected that the welfare state would continue to improve over time. The possibility of its reversal was rarely, if at all, considered. But scarcely a decade later in the 1980s, things began to change – slowly at first but gathering momentum over time, with attacks on unemployment insurance and welfare taking some of the worst hits in Canada. But healthcare, however, seemed to be an exception. It was, we thought, sacred, part of the ‘Canadian identity’, especially in comparison to the largely market provision of healthcare in the USA. Healthcare was said to be untouchable.

This proved to be quite wrong. As the Ontario Health Coalition (OHC) submission below powerfully documents, healthcare has become a major site of new profits for the corporate sector. But for the people of Ontario, particularly the working class, it is a system in crisis. Cutbacks are occurring across the country. In Ontario, the cutbacks have been particularly brutal, sending the province to the bottom of the provincial rankings in a range of measures on healthcare provision – a key part of the Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne’s pride in touting that Ontario has the lowest per capita expenditures on programs in the country.

Three points need to be considered in reading the OHC’s submission. First, we need to remind ourselves that no social gains are forever under capitalism. And telling ourselves that ‘it could be worse’ and just watching these developments guarantees that it will be worse.

Second, as important as it is to continue to fight for higher wages, the greatest current threat in Canada to working class security and the quality of life revolves around our social programs and public services. There is a long list of cutbacks that are the consequence of the austerity governments across Canada are imposing: the overcrowded classrooms and undermining of special education services and programs that enrich kids’ lives; the debt university education now forces on students; lagging investment in public infrastructure and the environment; inadequate public transit; welfare rates and unemployment insurance rules that reinforce poverty; the failures in long term care for seniors; and the growing threat to universal healthcare across the range of health needs.

Third, the cuts to social programs from austerity are a political problem. We can’t solve it alone or through fragmented collective bargaining. The cuts affect the working classes as a whole. We have to take it on as a class. This doesn’t mean asking politicians to make more promises that we know will go unfilled. It means mobilizing and organizing a mass movement to demand a thorough change in the trajectory of our society. Canadians too much live within a mythical reputation for moderation and patience. Isn’t it about time for the patience to run out and the anger to rise?

*

Submission to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Ontario Health Coalition

Priority Recommendation: Stop Devastating Hospital Cuts and Restore Funding to Average of Other Provinces

Hospital global funding increases have been set below the rate of inflation since at least 2008. Since 2012/13 global hospital budget funding levels have been frozen. In sum, this means that global hospital budgets have been cut in real dollar terms (inflation-adjusted dollars) for 8 years in a row. This is the longest period of hospital cuts in Ontario’s history and there is no end in sight. The evidence shows that the hospital funding formula and austerity measures that have cut global hospital budgets in real dollar terms for almost a decade, have resulted in a dramatic reduction in needed services. By key measures, Ontario now ranks at the bottom of comparable jurisdictions in key measures of hospital care levels.

Ontario Health Coalition activists supporing public healthcare.

As a result, hospitals large and small in every geographic region of Ontario are cutting needed services. Hospitals are now at dangerous levels of overcrowding; staffing levels have dropped precipitously; and patients are suffering as they are forced to wait longer and drive further to access care and are discharged before they are stable.

A sampling of recent cuts:

  • North Bay: 30 – 40 beds closing and 140 staff positions to be cut.
  • Brockville: 17 Registered Nurses cut affecting departments across the hospital.
  • London: up to 500 surgeries including hip, knee, gall bladder and others cancelled until next fiscal year due to inadequate funding of surgery budgets.
  • Woodstock: hip, knee and other surgeries cancelled til next fiscal year.
  • Trenton: virtually all surgeries cut and closed down along with half the remaining acute care beds.
  • Minden: the hospital CEO is speculating openly about closing the Minden hospital.
  • Niagara: five entire hospitals to be closed and replaced with one.
  • Windsor: 160 nurses and staff positions to be cut affecting departments across the hospital.
  • Kitchener-Waterloo: 68 staff positions to be cut affecting departments across the hospital.
  • Midland: at risk: birthing, cafeteria, OR closure 2 days per week, ICU beds to be cut, along with beds and other services.

The Ontario Health Coalition is deeply concerned about the cuts to our province’s public hospitals and has focused our pre-budget submission on one key recommendation:

Chart 1.

Hospital Beds
Per 1000 (population)
By Province, 2013-14
Newfoundland & Labrador 4.6
New Brunswick 3.8
Saskatchewan 3.6
Nova Scotia 3.4
Manitoba 3.3
PEI 3.3
British Columbia 3.0
Alberta 2.8
Ontario 2.3
Average other provinces 3.5

Author’s calculations from: Canadian Institute for Health Information, Data Table: Hospital Beds Staffed and in Operation 2013-14. Population statistics from Canadian Institute for Health Information, National Health Expenditures Database 2015.

Chart 2.

OECD Hospital Beds
Per 1000 Population, 2013
Japan 13.3
Korea 11.0
Germany 8.3
Austria 7.7
Hungary 7.0
Poland 6.6
Czech Republic 6.5
France 6.3
Belgium 6.3
Slovak Republic 5.8
Luxembourg 5.1
Estonia 5.0
Finland 4.9
Greece 4.8
Switzerland 4.7
Slovenia 4.6
Norway 3.9
Australia 3.8
Italy 3.4
Portugal 3.4
Iceland 3.2
Israel 3.1
Denmark 3.1
Spain 3.0
United States 2.9
Ireland 2.8
New Zealand 2.8
United Kingdom 2.8
Canada 2.7
Turkey 2.7
Sweden 2.6
Ontario 2.3
Chile 2.2
Mexico 1.6
OECD Average 4.8

Source: OECD, Health Statistics 2015.

⇒ Recommendation: The hospital cuts must be stopped immediately. Hospital funding must be restored to the average of the other provinces in Canada and funding must go to restoring and improving service levels to meet population need.

Ontario Ranks at the Bottom in Key Indicators of Hospital Care Levels

The evidence is indisputable that Ontario’s government has cut hospital care to the lowest levels of all provinces in Canada. As illustrated in Chart 1, Ontario has the fewest hospital beds left per capita of any province, and that number is declining. In 2008-09, Ontario had 2.5 hospital beds per 1000 population, according to Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) data. Today that number has dropped to 2.3 hospital beds per 1000 population. The other provinces average 3.5 hospital beds per 1000 people. The difference of 1.2 beds per 1000 population is vast. On an aggregate per capita basis Ontario now has 16,440 less hospital beds than the average. In fact, Ontario’s government has cut more than 18,000 hospital beds since 1990 and still the cuts are continuing.

Not only has Ontario cut more hospital beds than any other province in Canada, we also now rank at the bottom of international data on hospital beds per population. Compared to 33 countries of the OECD, Ontario is third last in hospital beds per capita, followed only by Mexico and Turkey.

As hospital beds continue to be cut and closed down, nurses, health professionals and support staff have also been cut dramatically. Ontario has dropped to the bottom of the country in nurse to patient ratios. Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information shows that Ontario now has the least hours of nursing care per hospital patient. Yet nurse staffing levels continue to be cut.

Across Canada, patients receive 14.2 per cent more nursing care than do patients in Ontario’s hospitals. Chart 3 illustrates the growing gap between Ontario and the rest of Canada in nursing hours per patient (ie. per weighted case). In 2007 – 08 Ontario’s nurse staffing hours were 3.61 hours below the average of Canada per weighted case. By 2011-12, Ontario’s nurse staffing hours were 6.1 hours below the average of the country. That is a 69 per cent increase in the differential in just four years. As the hospital cuts have continued and escalated since 2011-12, we can expect that gap to be even wider when more recent data becomes available.

Chart 3.

Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2013.
Nursing Inpatient Services
Total Worked Hours per Weighted Case
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
NFLD 52.20 53.26 54.48 55.90 52.90
PEI 83.48 N/R 62.19 62.46 61.66
N. S. 56.79 57.34 U U 54.95
N.B. 54.98 55.46 56.26 57.29 58.13
Quebec 49.73 50.06 50.82 50.73 52.47
Ontario 44.98 44.76 43.71 42.81 42.88
Manitoba 54.41 54.27 53.87 53.06 53.97
Saskatchewan 49.37 51.42 51.28 52.95 54.18
Alberta 54.12 54.65 54.52 54.24 54.36
B.C. 44.24 45.27 45.03 45.87 46.27
NWT U 83.05 88.51 69.48 N/R
Yukon 48.84 48.97 50.25 56.31 54.51
Weighted Average 48.59 48.80 48.36 48.20 48.98

Eight Years of Real-Dollar Cuts Mean Ontario Has Dropped to the Bottom of the Country in Hospital Funding

The above data gives a statistical overview of some key indicators of hospital service levels in Ontario compared to other jurisdictions in Canada and internationally. The following section measures hospital funding compared to other provinces in Canada. As noted above, Ontario’s government has set global hospital operating funding increases below the rate of inflation for 8 consecutive years – the longest period of hospital cuts in our province’s history. For the last four years, hospital global funding has been frozen. In real dollar terms, Ontario is in its eighth year of hospital cuts. Today, by all measures, Ontario has dropped far below the other provinces in hospital funding.

Chart 4.

Public Hospital Funding
Per Person, 2015
Current $
Newfoundland & Labrador $2,406
Alberta $2,245
Prince Edward Island $1,995
New Brunswick $1,971
Nova Scotia $1,907
Manitoba $1,818
British Columbia $1,797
Saskatchewan $1,761
Ontario $1,419
Quebec $1,382
Average of the other provinces $1,920
Difference between Ontario and the average of the other provinces Ontario funds hospitals at $501 per person

Source: Author’s calculations from CIHI, National Health Expenditures Database 2015

Chart 5.

Public Hospital Funding
as % of Provincial GDP
2015
PEI 4.73 %
New Brunswick 4.45 %
Nova Scotia 4.31 %
Newfoundland & Labrador 3.82 %
Manitoba 3.59 %
British Columbia 3.35 %
Quebec 2.97 %
Alberta 2.67 %
Ontario 2.64 %
Saskatchewan 2.38 %
Average of the other provinces 3.59 %

Source: Author’s calculations from CIHI, National Health Expenditures Database 2015

Chart 6.

Public Hospital Funding
as % of All Provincial Program Funding
2014
Nova Scotia 20.72 %
British Columbia 19.44 %
New Brunswick 18.95 %
Alberta 18.91 %
Newfoundland & Labrador 18.61 %
Manitoba 17.94 %
PEI 17.56 %
Ontario 15.34 %
Saskatchewan 14.73 %
Quebec 11.16 %
Average of other provinces 17.56 %

Source: Author’s calculations from CIHI, National Health Expenditures Database 2015.

Measured on a per capita basis, the most recent data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information National Health Expenditures Database shows that Ontario ranks second-last in hospital funding. For the last few years, Ontario and Quebec have traded places for lowest ranking in the country. We are significantly below the national average. In fact, Ontario’s government funds our public hospitals $501 less per person than the average of the other provinces.

Hospital spending per person is a clear comparison of how many resources our government is allocating to these services. To measure economic sustainability or affordability, GDP (which measures economic output) is used as the comparator. As measured as a percentage of provincial GDP, the results are the same. Ontario is second last in Canada, followed only by Saskatchewan which saw significant GDP growth in recent years. This measure shows that Ontario has room to improve hospital funding while keeping funding at sustainable levels, as long as funding goes to improving services.

Sustainability can also be measured in terms of expenditure as a proportion of the provincial budget. In Ontario, hospital funding as a share of the provincial budget has been declining for decades. The most recent data show that we are third last among Canadian provinces for hospital spending as a proportion of total program spending. Again, the data show that we are considerably lower than the average of the other provinces and there is room to improve hospital funding to stop the cuts and restore service levels to meet population need.

Hospital Overcrowding, Cuts and Early Discharges:
Impact on Patients

Ontario has not conducted a hospital bed study to measure population need and assess how many hospital beds should be planned for more than fifteen years. To the extent that data is being used in planning at all, the numbers that are being used are two decades out of date. Instead of using an evidence-based planning approach, Ontario’s health policy has centred on constraining hospital budgets, cutting services and reducing patient length of stay. As a result, Ontario is suffering from a shortage of hospital beds and services that is negatively affecting patients’ access to care and safety.

Sampling of hospital bed occupancy rates (final quarter 2013).

  • Napanee/Lennox/Addington: 123%
  • Sault Ste Marie area: 114%
  • Toronto Hosp. for Sick Kids: 110%
  • Toronto Central: 110%
  • London Health Sciences Centre: 108%
  • Exeter South Huron: 106%
  • Burlington Joseph Brant: 106%
  • Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant: 106%
  • Niagara Health System: 104%
  • Windsor Hotel Dieu Grace: 101%
  • Erie St. Clair: 101%
  • Oakville Halton Health: 101%
  • Mississauga Halton: 101%
  • The Ottawa Hospital: 101%
  • Barry’s Bay St Francis: 101%
  • Thunder Bay Regional: 100%
  • Newmarket Southlake Reg.: 100%

From Ministry of Health data accessed by Jonathan Sher, London Free Press

Ontario’s hospital occupancy levels are extraordinarily high. According to Ministry of Health data, by 2010 there were, on average, 30,164 inpatients[1] in Ontario’s 30,810 hospital beds.[2] The provincial hospital bed occupancy rate is 97.8%, much higher than other jurisdictions. By comparison, the OECD reports an average occupancy rate for acute care beds of 75%.[3] In the United States, the average hospital occupancy rate is 68.2%.[4] Most often cited in the academic literature, a target hospital occupancy rate to reduce access blockages and improve outcomes is 85%.

The consequences of hospital overcrowding warrant public attention. Within hospitals, overcrowding is associated with serious quality of care issues. Overcrowded emergency departments do not have appropriate staffing ratios for critical care or intensive care patients who require intensive monitoring by specially trained staff. Across Europe, hospital occupancy rates have been cited as a determining factor in hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), and indeed Ontario has experienced repeated waves of Hospital Acquired Infection outbreaks. Cancelled surgeries and prolonged waits are associated with poorer health outcomes. Ontario’s extremely high occupancy poses a significant threat to patient safety and quality of care.

Emergency room overcrowding is epidemic among large and medium-sized community hospitals in Ontario, and a frequently noted factor in ER wait times is the unavailability of acute care beds.[5] In 2011, Ontario had, on average 592 patients waiting in emergency departments for admission to an inpatient bed. This represents almost 4% of Ontario’s total acute care beds.[6] A study by Ontario researchers has demonstrated that long waiting times increase the risk of death and hospital readmission for patients who have been discharged from the emergency department. This study, published in the British Medical Journal looked at 22 million patient visits to Ontario emergency departments over a five year period, and found that the risk of death and hospital readmission increased with the degree of overcrowding at the time the patient arrived in the emergency department. The authors estimate that if the average length of stay in the emergency department was an hour less, about 150 fewer Ontarians would die each year.[7]

Not only is there a problem getting into hospitals, there is also a serious issue of patients being discharged too early and without placement in home care and in long term care homes. The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly reports that they receive frequent complaints from patients who are subject to pressure tactics to move them out of hospitals. Hospital policies may include statements that if person refuses to pick from short lists of long term care facilities that are not of their choosing, or if the patient refuses to take first available bed, then will be charged a large per diem ranging from $600 a day to $1800 a day.[8] In many cases the charges levied against patients in an attempt to move them out of hospital are unlawful.

In addition to reduced hospital beds and shorter lengths of stay for hospital patients, entire departments have been systematically cut from local hospitals. Outpatient rehabilitation, social work, laboratories and an array of outpatient services have been slashed. In many cases this care is moved far away from patients’ home communities, privatized and subject to new user fees, or simply inaccessible.

Consequences of Emergency Department Overcrowding

  • Patient suffering, dissatisfaction and inconvenience
  • Poor patient outcomes
  • Increased morbidity and mortality
  • Poor quality of care
  • Contribution to infectious disease outbreaks
  • Violence aimed at hospital staff and physicians
  • Decreased physician and nursing productivity
  • Deteriorating levels of service
  • Increased risk of medical error
  • Negative work environments
  • Negative effects on teaching and research

Source: Physician Hospital Care Committee Report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Medical Association and Ontario Hospital Association Tripartite Committee, Improving Access to Emergency Care: Addressing System Issues, August 2006.

Misalignment with Provincial Government Policy
and Requirements of the Canada Health Act

Under the Canada Health Act, hospital and physician services are to be provided without financial barrier on equal terms and conditions to all Canadians. That means that the cost of illness and injury is to be shared by all Canadians, and care is to be provided through our public taxes so that people are not burdened when they are ill, injured or dying; when they are least able to pay. The fundamental principles of compassion and equity, of which Canadians are rightfully so proud, are embodied in this system of health care for all. The Canada Health Act was passed with unanimous support from all political parties in Parliament.

Provincial governments are expected to uphold the principles of Public Medicare for all, as enshrined in the Canada Health Act. But when public hospital services are cut, and services are offloaded from public hospitals, services are inequitable, subject to user fees, ad hoc and almost always privatized. Patients are faced with burgeoning user fees and costs that cause hardship and suffering, just when people are least able to bear them.

As hospital services have been cut, an increasing scope of care has been offloaded to private clinics. The Ontario Health Coalition has conducted repeated rounds of research aimed at determining how many private clinics are charging extra user fees to patients for medically necessary services. In our studies in 2008 and 2014, we found a significant number of private clinics that are charging patients hundreds to thousands of dollars on top of billing OHIP for services. In a significant number of cases, private clinics are charging patients for medically necessary services, in violation of the Canada Health Act. Increasingly, clinic operators are also using manipulative and confusing information to persuade patients that they will have poorer health outcomes if they do not pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for their cataract surgeries and associated tests and assessments.

The evidence shows that ownership matters. Cuts to public hospital services are resulting in for-profit privatization of needed care, and private clinic operators are eroding the first principle of Public Medicare in Canada, that care must be provided equally, based on need not wealth.

Mission and Mandate

Our primary goal is to protect and improve our public health care system. We work to honour and strengthen the principles of the Canada Health Act. We are led by our shared commitment to core values of equality, democracy, social inclusion and social justice; and by the five principles of the Act: universality; comprehensiveness; portability; accessibility and public administration. We are a non-partisan public interest activist coalition and network.

To this end, we empower the members of our constituent organizations to become actively engaged in the making of public policy on matters related to our public health care system and healthy communities. We seek to provide to member organizations and the broader public ongoing information about our health care system and its programs and services, and to protect our public health system from threats such as cuts, delisting and privatization. Through public education and support for public debate, we contribute to the maintenance and extension of a system of checks and balances that is essential to good decision-making. We are an extremely collaborative organization, actively working with others to share resources and information.

Who We Are

The Ontario Health Coalition is comprised of a Board of Directors, committees of the Board as approved in the Coalition’s annual Action Plan, Local Coalitions, member organizations and individual members. Currently the Ontario Health Coalition represents more than 400 member organizations and a network of Local Health Coalitions and individual members. Our members include: seniors’ groups; patients’ organizations; unions; nurses and health professionals’ organizations; physicians and physician organizations that support the public health system; non-profit community agencies; ethnic and cultural organizations; residents’ and family councils; retirees; poverty and equality-seeking groups; women’s organizations, and others. •

Full submission (PDF).

Notes:

1. See: www.healthsystemfacts.com.

2. Ontario Hospital Association at www.healthsystemfacts.com.

3. OECD “Health at a Glance 2009” page 95.

4. National Center for Health Statistics, “Health, United States 2010”, 2011, page 354.

5. See: Forster, A.J. et al “The Effect of Hospital Occupancy on Emergency Department Length of Stay and Patient Disposition” Academic Emergency Medicine, 2003; CIHI “Understanding Emergency Department Wait Times”; B.H.Rowe et al., “Frequency, Determinants, and Impact of Overcrowding in Emergency Departments in Canada” 2006; OHA, OMA, MOHLTC, “Improving Access to Emergency Care: Addressing System Issues” 2006.

6. Ontario Hospital Association, “ALC Study”, June 2011.

7. BMJ 2011; 342:d2983.

8. Wahl, Judith, Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. “ALC, Hospital Discharge, Long Term Care and Retirement Home – What Happened to the Law and Ethics?” Power Point presentation 2011.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Against Privatization: Canada Health Coalition Demands Funding for Hospitals

Peace Talks “Paused” after Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo

February 5th, 2016 by Mike Whitney

“This is the beginning of the end of jihadi presence in Aleppo. After 4 years of war and terror, people can finally see the end in sight.”

— Edward Dark, Twitter, Moon of Alabama

A last ditch effort to stop a Russian-led military offensive in northern Syria ended in failure on Wednesday when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) backed by the National Defense Forces (NDF) and heavy Russian air cover broke a 40-month siege on the villages of Nubl and al-Zahra in northwestern Aleppo province. The Obama administration had hoped that it could forestall the onslaught by cobbling together an eleventh-hour ceasefire agreement at the Geneva peace talks.  But when the news that Syrian armored units had crashed through al Nusra’s defenses and forced the jihadists to retreat, UN envoy Staffan de Mistura suspended the negotiations tacitly acknowledging that the mission had failed.

“I have indicated from the first day that I won’t talk for the sake of talking,” the envoy told reporters, saying he needed immediate help from international backers led by the United States and Russia, which are supporting opposite sides of a war that has also drawn in regional powers.” (Reuters)  De Mistura then announced a “temporary pause” in the stillborn negotiations which had only formally begun just hours earlier. Developments on the battlefield had convinced the Italian-Swedish diplomat that it was pointless to continue while government forces were effecting a solution through military means.

After months of grinding away at enemy positions across the country,  the Russian strategy has begun to bear fruit. Loyalist ground forces have made great strides on the battlefield rolling back the war-weary insurgents on virtually all fronts. A broad swathe of the Turkish border is now under SAA control while the ubiquitous Russian bombers continue to inflict heavy losses on demoralized anti-regime militants. Wednesday’s lightening attack on the strategic towns of  Nubl and Zahraa was just the icing on the cake.  The bold maneuver severed critical supply-lines to Turkey while  tightening the military noose around the country’s largest city leaving hundreds of terrorists stranded in a battered cauldron with no way out.

For the last two weeks, the Obama team has been following developments on the ground with growing concern. This is why Secretary of State John Kerry hurriedly assembled a diplomatic mission to convene emergency peace talks in Geneva despite the fact that the various participants had not even agreed to attend. A sense of urgency bordering on panic was palpable from the onset. The goal was never to achieve a negotiated settlement or an honorable peace, but (as Foreign Policy magazine noted) to implement “a broad ‘freeze’ over the whole province of Aleppo, which would then be replicated in other regions later.” This was the real objective, to stop the bleeding any way possible and prevent the inevitable encirclement of Aleppo.

The recapturing of Nubl and Zahraa leaves the jihadists with just one route for transporting weapons, food and fuel to their urban stronghold. When loyalist forces break the blockade at Bab al Hawa to the northeast, the loop will be closed, the perimeter will tighten, the cauldron will be split into smaller enclaves within the city, and the terrorists will either surrender or face certain annihilation. Wednesday’s triumph by the Russian-led coalition is a sign that that day may be approaching sooner than anyone had anticipated.

It’s worth noting, that a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Michael O’Hanlon– whose plan to “deconstruct Syria” by using “moderate elements”  to “produce autonomous zones”–advised Obama and Kerry “not to pursue the failed logic of the current Syria peace talks but to explore a confederal model and seek buy-in from as many key players and allies as possible.”   In other words, the main architect of the US plan to break up Syria into smaller areas, (controlled by local militias, warlords and jihadists) thought the peace talks were “doomed” from the very beginning.

According to O’Hanlon the US needs to commit “20,000 combat troops” with  “the right political model for maintaining occupation”.   The Brookings analyst says  that “Any ceasefire that Kerry could negotiate…would be built on a foundation of sand” for the mere fact that the “moderate” forces it would support would be much weaker than either the SAA or ISIS. That means there would be no way to enforce the final settlement and no army strong enough to establish the authority of the new “unity” government.

O’Hanlon’s comments suggest western elites are deeply divided over Syria. The hawks are still pushing for more intervention, greater US, EU, and NATO involvement, and American and allied “boots on the ground” to occupy the country for an undetermined amount of time. In contrast, the Obama administration wants to minimize its commitment while trying desperately to placate its critics.

That means Syria’s troubles could resurface again in the future when Obama steps down and a new president pursues a more muscular strategy.  A number of  powerful people in the ruling establishment are as determined-as-ever to partition Syria and install a US puppet in Damascus. That’s not going to change. The Russian-led coalition has a small window for concluding its operations, eliminating the terrorists, and reestablishing security across the country.  Ending the war as soon as possible, while creating a safe environment for Syrian refugees to return home, is the best way to reduce the threat of escalation and discourage future US adventurism. But Putin will have to move fast for the plan to work.

Excerpts from:  “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war“, Michael O’ Hanlon, Brookings Institute.

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace Talks “Paused” after Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo

Six Reasons Why the Iowa Caucus Turned into a Voter Fraud Circus in Favor of Hillary

February 5th, 2016 by Joachim Hagopian

No sooner out the gate with the closest caucus vote in Iowa history already on the books, the very first state tally of delegate votes leading to the 2016 presidential election bears strong indication of voter fraud. It’s been reported that Hillary Clinton instructed her staff in Iowa to rig the caucus voting by falsely standing in the O’Malley corner of the room when the final precinct hand counts are tallied.

Since Martin O’Malley supporters fell drastically short with only about 1% of the required 15% “viability threshold” needed for his delegate votes in each precinct to be included in the final count, standard Iowa caucus protocol stipulates that any O’Malley voters would then be given the option to back either Clinton or Bernie Sanders in a final tally.

But Hillary already cheated having dictated to her staff to go and falsely be counted as O’Malley supporters voting for Hillary in the final count when she knew O’Malley supporters would by default favor Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. That’s the first major discrepancy coming out of Iowa earlier this week implicating voter fraud in the caucus. Ironically back in the 2008 Obama vs. Hillary campaign cycle, it was Hillary crying afoul when the Obama camp cut a deal with Bill Richardson supporters to use this very same unethical, deceitful tactic that the already untrustworthy, win-at-all-cost Hillary’s now apparently pulled in Iowa.

The second even more blatant evidence that the Iowa state caucus and entire Democratic Party presidential election process has been rigged is that mega-giant corporation Microsoft founder Bill Gates is now in charge of counting both the Democratic and Republican votes in this year’s state primary elections.

Tech savvy Betanews journalist Brian Fagioli recently had this to say about Microsoft counting votes:

Closed source technologies from companies like Microsoft could, in theory, contain backdoors or vulnerabilities that hackers and evildoers could exploit. Even worse, Microsoft or its employees could purposely alter voting software to influence outcomes.

Combine that reality with the all too cozy relationship between Microsoft and the Clintons and you have a suspiciously compromised conflict of interest.

The fact is the Gates Foundation along with Microsoft employees have literally donated millions of dollars to Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. As Microsoft’s Executive VP and Chief Strategy Officer up until last year, Mark Penn has also been called Hillary’s “pollster, chief strategist and message guru all wrapped into one.” Like all good practicing globalists never failing to back both sides, Gates also happens to be the second largest financier for Republican Florida Senator Mark Rubio. That the Clinton-Gates-Rubio ties run so deep should suffice as cut-and-dry evidence proving that a serious conflict of interest breach should have legally prevented Microsoft from any stake in this year’s election. But an all too obvious reason Microsoft’s counting votes is the same reason that another diehard Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in charge as National Chair of the Democratic National Committee, in and of itself signifying yet another serious conflict of interest advantage heavily favoring the deep pocketed Hillary camp. The powers-that-be make no bones about who they are handpicking to be their next presidential puppet. And pro-corporate warmonger Hillary’s their guy… or gal.

First the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 to permit oligarchs to legally bribe politicians with unlimited campaign donations and now mega-corporations playing such a critical determining factor on who gets elected by vote count despite the fact that corporations’ vested interest openly favor one candidate over another defies all fair practice ethics and clearly demonstrates a conflict of interest. But in today’s admittedly official oligarchy, special interests rule in utter contempt and mockery over the Founding Fathers’ notion that a democratic government should serve the interests of its citizenry as its voting electorate. Instead what we’re now left with is a revolving door of secret no bid contractors and corporate-political cronyism where a handful of elitist players move in and out of a shadow government and the private sector, frequently stopping off as go-between lobbyists ensuring unbounded money, power and control grow more absolute in fewer hands.

The reality that outsiders like Bernie Sanders (who in 12 months came from 53.8% points behind Clinton to tie her in Iowa) and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump are in strong position at all to secure the corrupt two party system’s nominations has the establishment worried. So what does the elite do? Ensure that once again electronic voting will be used to tamper with election results and make certain that without a paper trail ballot only handpicked CFR-approved candidates like Hillary obtain their party nomination. Just this fact alone that Microsoft smartphone apps are serving as this year’s primary electronic vote counter throughout both the Democratic and Republican presidential election process smacks of in-our-face, over-the-top foul play.

As a result, the Bernie Sanders camp took the enterprising initiative and went ahead to develop its own electronic apps in order to counterbalance the built-in Microsoft bias. In the last couple days their efforts to review the math sheets signed off by precinct chairs and cross-checking them with numbers fed to Microsoft apps has unsurprisingly resulted in the Sanders staff already finding a number of inconsistencies.

Reason number 3 that the Iowa caucus was rigged is that both CNN and The Blaze reported that the final tally was missing votes from 90 Iowa precincts. How can a final count be considered legitimate and final if not all, especially as large a chunk as 90 precincts comprising 5% of all the state’s total number of votes haven’t even been included in the final outcome especially in the closest Iowa caucus contest in history? Early Tuesday morning the Clinton staff had already opportunistically proclaimed premature victory with a statistical tie of 49.8% to Sanders’ 49.54% minus the 5% of precinct votes still never counted.

Despite the Iowa Democratic Party acknowledging this enormous discrepancy, apparently with Hillary backer Debbie Wasserman Schultz, this gargantuan 90 precinct “oversight” appears to have merely been quickly cast aside like it never even happened. The lame excuse Wasserman’s party used to explain the missing 90 precincts from the final tally was that the Democratic Party didn’t have sufficient staff for assignment to all those missing precinct locations. How much you want to bet that those missing precincts voted strongly in favor of Sanders?

Reason number 4 to conclude that election fraud occurred in Iowa is that C-SPAN actually captured on video at the Polk County precinct the caucus chair and the Clinton precinct captain not even bothering to conduct a final count of the caucus voters and then the Clinton precinct captain caught lying to the Sanders precinct captain. This came after an initial count had Sanders with 238 to Clinton’s 218 votes. But somehow in the end Hillary Clinton suddenly managed to magically gain 14 more votes for a total of 232 while Bernie Sanders’ count mysteriously slumped to just 224. Miscounting votes by deliberate fraud gets inadvertently captured on camera for the world to see just how the undemocratic beacon of America – land of the not-so-free – in actuality operates like the closed totalitarian system it is.

Reason number 5 that strongly suggests that voter fraud took place this week in Iowa is that the results were determined by six coin tosses in a row all favoring Hillary to ultimately decide the winner. After six county precincts ended up in dead ties between Clinton and Sanders, by state protocol those six precincts did a coin toss to determine the winner and in all six counties we’re supposed to actually believe that Hillary’s tails won. Though Clinton’s known for telling fish tales, it shouldn’t have overturned the virtually impossible statistical odds of just 1.56%. Just one more highly incredulous piece to what already appears to be a criminal case of voter fraud.

The long history of voter fraud in America takes us to the sixth and final reason to believe voter fraud marred the Iowa caucus results. With the two George W. Bush stolen elections in both 2000 and again in 2004, it’s become an entrenched American tradition, proving that electronic fraud can only be remedied by a paper trail ballot. So in 2016 it may seem hard to believe that archaic coin tossing, more miscounted and missing votes along with more electronic tampering minus paper ballots are still tilting and dirtying up the US politics machine. But pretty much like everything else that’s one wrong in this world, globalist design wouldn’t have it any other way.

Long before Bush there was Andrew Jackson’s defeat to John Quincy Adams in 1824 called the “Corrupt Bargain.” Of course Jackson would later be vindicated as America’s seventh president and last of the people’s champion to crush the elite’s relentless effort to establish its private central banking system that permanently wrested power and control away from the federal government into the waiting hands of the megalomaniacal bankers. When asked what his greatest achievement was during his two term presidency, Jackson replied, ”I killed the bank.” But unfortunately less than a century later the banksters were back with their ultimate coup d’état. Just before Christmas in 1913 when the House was near empty, the elite snuck through their Federal Reserve Act and debtor nation America’s never been the same since. Never-ending war for bankers’ profits have been in control ever since.

Numerous flagrant lapses in Iowa’s vote count illustrate not only how low and desperate Hillary Clinton has sunk but also unveils the depth of corruption in American politics. Additionally it’s a reflection of Clinton’s frantic race to steal her party’s nomination prior to her potential indictment for high crime treason after being caught red-handed as Secretary of State using her own private email server to make illicit arms deals while selling off America’s national security to highest foreign bidders and then repeatedly lying about it. Then there’s her arms smuggling that gave rise to arming ISIS terrorists with heavy weapons and the Benghazi affair where she was responsible for the murder of four Americans and her culpability literally dodging the truth with her well-timed accidental fall after that scandal.

The long crime familyline of the Clintons and Bushes just like our lame duck, CIA spawned Manchurian president are the elite’s modern day puppets representing the shadowy sinister elements operating inside the United States that hijacked Washington and never left after assassinating America’s greatest leaders in the 1960’s – both Kennedys as well as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Currently the same international crime cabal ruling over the United States is also firmly entrenched ruling Israel, Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan. Though the UN through its Agenda 21 as its operationalized blueprint for the future are currently in the process still formalizing and codifying world governance laws on climate change, even without TTP and TTIP ratification, the citizens of the world are already living in debtor chains under the deep state tyranny of a one world government that has the ruling elite for more than a century cherry picking its puppet leaders from every Western nation. The corrupt election process embodied in Iowa this week ensures their handpicked, elitist-approved candidates win on every continent.

These obvious anomalies in Iowa quickly stacking up in just the first state contest deciding which party candidate will get the presidential nomination reminds us of the anomalies that invariably surface after every state sponsored terrorism false flag. The governments’ official narrative lies always fail miserably to conceal the lowdown truth. The corruption and criminality characterizing today’s US federal government crime cabal operating currently in Washington undoubtedly has to be the worst and most blatant in recorded American history. But then in the rise and fall of all known civilizations and empires throughout human history, this same final stage of unprecedented immoral and perverse decay occurs like clockwork just prior to their epic collapse as they crumble and crash to the ground. So why would the US Empire in all its present day depravity be any different? It isn’t, and it’s now tumbling down at freefall speed.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Six Reasons Why the Iowa Caucus Turned into a Voter Fraud Circus in Favor of Hillary

India Steps Up Pressure on Nepal

February 5th, 2016 by W.A. Sunil

A continued Indian-backed blockade of supplies to Nepal, a small landlocked country wedged between India and China, has escalated tensions between Kathmandu and New Delhi.

Nepali Prime Minister K. P. Oli has threatened to withdraw his acceptance of an invitation from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to visit India this month. Oli told journalists on January 26: “It would not be appropriate for me to visit India unless the situation returns to normal.”

On Monday, the deputy chief of the publicity committee of the Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML), Surya Thapa, declared: “If the embargo is not lifted, the Prime Minister [Oli] may visit China first, instead of India.”

India denies any involvement in the blockade, maintained since last September, insisting that it is a result of agitation by Madhesi parties from Nepal’s flat southern Madhesh region for amendments to Nepal’s constitution, adopted in August. The United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) has conducted a protest campaign demanding that Madhesh (or Terai) be given greater representation in parliament.

Nepali police have killed at least 55 people since September in suppressing the Madhesi protests. On January 21, police shot down three protesters who allegedly tried to disrupt a CPN-UML meeting in Terai that Oli was to address.

Due to the blockade, essential supplies such as fuel have been substantially limited, severely affecting hospitals, transport and power generation. Many schools have closed down due to lack of transport.

India is tacitly supporting the Madhesi demands, encouraging their agitation and asking the Kathmandu ruling elite to amend the constitution to address the “legitimate aspirations” of all sections of the country’s population.

Under immense pressure from India, the Nepali government agreed to three basic Madhesi demands for a re-demarcation of provinces, the fixing of electoral constituencies on the basis of population and proportional representation. Parliament passed those amendments last week but Madhesi parties rejected them, saying they had loopholes that Kathmandu could manipulate.

The Madhesi parties, which represent the regional elite, are pressing for greater privileges, backed by New Delhi’s continued insistence on “suitable amendments” to the constitution.

The Nepali government’s conflicting signals regarding what would be Oli’s first overseas visit expresses a political crisis exacerbated by India’s intervention, which has been encouraged by the US. New Delhi’s concern is not to uphold the democratic rights of Madhesi people but to firmly establish its geo-political foothold over Nepal. India’s government is using the communal politics of the Madhesi parties to scuttle China’s growing influence in the country.

Sections of the Indian ruling elite have expressed concerns that the government has not intervened “fast enough” in Nepal and is now pushing it more toward China. On December 29, India’s parliamentary standing committee on external affairs questioned foreign secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar about the government’s policy in Nepal.

One committee member told the Hindu: “Nepal was fast emerging as vehicle for China’s growing influence in south Asia and souring India’s ties with Nepal.” This “would send out a negative message to other members of the South Asian region.”

Kathmandu signed an agreement with a Chinese company in October to import petroleum, even though delivering supplies from China is difficult through the mountainous terrain. The agreement demonstrated that Kathmandu was seeking to counter New Delhi’s pressure and that China was taking the opportunity to bolster its relations.

Strategic rivalry with China dominates the Indian political and defence establishment’s discussions and calculations. Nihar R Nayak, an analyst from India’s defence ministry-sponsored thinktank IDSA, recently warned: “At a time when India is confronted with growing negative sentiments in Nepal, China has been reaping a good harvest of positive perceptions.”

At issue is not just India’s drive to incorporate Nepal into its perceived South Asian sphere of influence. Washington, which has embarked on aggressive military encirclement of China, has a strategic partnership with India. Both India and the US consider Nepal to be a critically-situated underbelly of China, a base from which to undermine Beijing.

The Obama administration is seeking to entangle all the countries across the region in its “pivot to Asia” to confront China. Echoing India’s stance, US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken telephoned Oli on January 22, urging him to “represent the interests of all Nepalis and take concrete steps to resolve the political impasse.”

China is taking steps to counter this line-up. The Chinese ambassador to Nepal, Wu Chuntai, called on Oli on the same day last December that Oli announced India’s invitation. Wu extended a counter-invitation to visit Beijing.

In 2014, China overtook India as Nepal’s largest foreign investor. A report by Nepal’s Department of Industry said Chinese investments reached $174 million between July and December 2014, accounting for over 60 percent of the total foreign direct investment committed. This was a three-fold rise from the $55 million investment in the corresponding months of 2011, when India was the biggest source of investment in Nepal.

The South China Morning Post quoted a Nepalese writer, Kanak Mani Dixit, saying: “Nepal cannot afford to loosen its ties with India as it’s impossible to replace India with China given our geography … But Nepal’s China tilt has never been this pronounced and it’s entirely the result of New Delhi’s policy.”

Dixit added: “Nepal’s situation vis-à-vis India means Nepal will not overnight convert itself into a pro-China holdout. But this still is a significant shift in South Asian geopolitics.”

The Nepal crisis is another expression of the aggressive US moves against China, and the harnessing of India as Washington’s partner. This drive is deepening geo-political tensions and increasing political instability throughout South Asia, including in mountainous Nepal.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India Steps Up Pressure on Nepal

“Apartheid In Palestine. Hard Laws and Harder Experiences”

February 5th, 2016 by Dr. Ludwig Watzal

Ghada Ageel (ed.), Apartheid in Palestine. Hard Laws and Harder Experiences, University of Alberta Press, Edmonton 2016, $ 59,95.

Apartheid in Palestine” is a valuable guidance in the struggle for justice in Palestine. Ghada Ageel gathered activists, indigenous Palestinians and scholars, which do not represent the worn-out media views that the public is tired of hearing. The authors believe that peace to the region can only come if justice is done to Palestinians and if their rights, denied for decades by Israel and the international community, are met.

Ghada Ageel is a visiting professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and an active member of the Faculty for Palestine/Alberta, Canada. She has gathered authors, such as Reem Shaik, Ramzy Baroud, Tali Shapiro, Reza Masali, to name a few from the activist side, and scholars such as Keith Hammond, James Cairns, Susan Ferguson, Edward C. Corrigan and others. They present to readers a deep understanding of the Palestinian narrative that centers around the traumatization resulting from the loss of their homeland and the dispossession which came along with that loss. To non-Palestinians, this narrative hasn’t been widely known, especially in the U.S., because it competes with the Israeli Holocaust narrative of eternal victimization.

In this anthology, indigenous voices, activists, and scholars present their views from their very different vantage points. Drawing on personal stories and meticulous research, their common accomplishment is a better understanding of the situation and what needs to be done to achieve equality and a just peace. Palestinian and some Israeli writers document the dispossession that took place since 1948 and continues unabated up until now.

Richard Falk, the renowned Professor emeritus for International Law from Princeton University, sets the right tone in his foreword, saying with the Oslo accords in shambles new ideas on both sides are becoming evident. Israeli society is moving to the far-right where ideas of transfer and Bantustanization are wide-spread. The best the Palestinians can expect from the current Israeli situation is a status of second-class citizens. Reasonable people who call for a viable Palestinian sovereign state in Israel are treated like “politically irrelevant voices in the wilderness”.

According to Falk, on the Palestinian side, the focus is shifting from “the level of governments to that of people and popular mobilization”. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been marginalized due to its collaboration with the Israeli occupier and Hamas can’t act effectively owing to its ghettoization in the Gaza Strip. One bright spot is the recognition of a Palestinian state by more and more countries of the European Union, although they keep repeating the Oslo-mantra of a two-state solution, which is de facto as dead as a dodo, so Falk.

Some authors write about their life story, determined by the traumatic experiences of the loss of a homeland; others talk about their political struggle for justice, which is part of their identity, and some authors interpret the Palestinian struggle from the perspective of international law and international relations. Many contributions to this anthology describe the chilling political situation of the Palestinians, aptly designated by Eva Illouz in Haaretz as “conditions of slavery”.

In her introduction, Ghada Ageel describes her impressions on the onslaught brought about the people of Gaza by the Israeli military machinery. Shortly after the ceasefire in 2014 came into effect, the author entered the Strip to see her family. She was shocked by the devastation. Despite the increasing support of the BDS movement worldwide, international protest by the United Nations and relief organizations and a protest letter by sixty-four influential figures, among them seven Nobel laureates, calling for an arms embargo on Israel, the Netanyahu government went on expanding the colonies in the Jordan Valley. Since Israel rejects all peace options, Israel is either becoming an apartheid state or the Palestinians may face another wave of brutal ethnic cleansing, writes Ageel. The topics “Apartheid”, “Nakba” (=the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948) and BDS pervade many articles.

Ramzy Baroud, a consultant for Middle East Eye in London, highlights the fact that Western media seldom allow Palestinians to narrate their own story. In academia it is hardly better, he writes. The Palestinian narrative appears thus as an annex to the dominant Zionist one or is presented in a fractional and disconnected language that has little to do with reality. In contrast, the Israeli approach is always cohesively presented in the media. According to the author, in occupied Palestine, the settlers go on daily rampages under the watchful eyes of the Israeli military in order to cause damage to farmers and to try to break their bond with their land. Baroud mentions also the precarious and dismal situation of Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab countries. “Palestinian refugees are also prisoners, of a precarious legal status, of Israeli intransigence, of international negligence, and of Arab betrayal.” The resistance in Palestine will go on until the people acquire their human rights, writes the author.

Keith Hammond, who lectures philosophy in the Open Studies Center of the University of Glasgow, addresses the question of Israel’s Legitimacy. Great Britain has the longest engagement with Zionism than any other country in the world, writes the British holocaust expert Cesarani, which Hammond quotes. Hammond mentions Israel’s close “incorporation” into European institutions, although the country violates every principle the EU pretends to stand for. He traces British support, especially that of the Labor Party, for the Zionist cause, back to late 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. According to Hammond, the “most effective opposition to Zionism in the UK before 1948 came from those inside Jewish communities”. Since the call for a boycott on Israel in 2004, the labor movement started communicating with its Palestinian counterparts. The author calls for a moratorium in order to put pressure on Israel “to change its persecution and dispossession. The right of return for Palestinians has to be honored and the whole nature of politics in Israel shifted.”

Edward C. Corrigan, who works as a specialist in citizenship and immigration law,  evaluates Israel’s occupation policy in the light of different international conventions and comes to the conclusion that they are all violated by the occupation regime. His criticism is lodged in the words of Moshe Gorali, the legal analyst for Haaretz: “To describe a situation where two populations, in this case, one Jewish and the other Arab, share the same territory but are governed by two separate legal systems, the international community customarily uses the term apartheid“.

The anthology could trigger a process of revisiting the last colonial conflict in the light of justice. All contributors emphasize that the situation in occupied Palestine is politically, economically, personally and morally, intolerable. They presented all arguments that are needed to confront Israel’s occupation regime. How serious the Netanyahu government takes BDS, shows the smear campaign it has started. An extremely valuable book and a must read for everyone interested in a just peace in Palestine.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany. He runs the bilingual blog http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.de/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Apartheid In Palestine. Hard Laws and Harder Experiences”

Oil Price Fall Brings Significant Losses for Big Producers

February 5th, 2016 by Nick Beams

The initial response of economic “conventional wisdom” to the slide in oil prices over the past 20 months—down from $110 per barrel in June 2014 to levels approaching $30—was that, whatever the impact on oil-exporting countries, it would aid the global economy because it would lift consumption and other spending.

It was argued that the falling oil price could not possibly be the harbinger of a global recession because all the previous downturns over the past 70 years—in particular the recessions of 1974–75 and 1981–82—were preceded by rising oil prices, while the period of growth in the 1990s was characterised by low oil prices.

That soothing scenario has been shattered over the recent period. The International Monetary Fund all but abandoned it last month, saying “the pickup in consumption in oil importers has so far been somewhat weaker than evidence from past episodes of oil price declines would have suggested.”

It has become increasingly clear that, far from providing a boost to the world economy, the precipitous drop in the oil price, together with other major industrial commodities, is symptomatic of deep recessionary trends.

The “conventional wisdom” ignored two major changes in the structure of the global economy over the past decade. First, that so-called emerging markets, many of which depend on the export of oil and other industrial commodities, now comprise about 40 percent of global gross domestic product, double their share in 1990, and so any decline in their revenues has a much bigger impact than previously. And, second, that the financial crisis of 2008–2009 was not merely a conjunctural downturn in the business cycle but signified a breakdown in the functioning of the global economy.

The downturn in oil prices is not only contributing to the lack of global demand—Apple pointed to the decline in demand from emerging markets as one reason for the expected first-ever decline in iPhone sales—it is working to create the conditions for a renewed financial crisis if oil-exporting countries default on their debts.

Venezuela could be the first in line. If oil prices continue at their January lows, Venezuela’s export revenues for this year will be $18 billion, compared to debt servicing charges of $10 billion. This leaves just $8 billion to finance imports, which came in at $37 billion last year. The economy contracted 10 percent last year, following a fall of 4 percent in 2014.

Other oil-exporting countries are being caught in the price vortex. World Bank and International Monetary Fund officials are holding talks with Azerbaijan over a $4 billion bailout and Nigeria is seeking a similar loan from the World Bank and the African Development Bank.

The falling oil price is now showing up in the profit and loss reports of the world’s major oil companies as they cut jobs and capital investment plans. Last month, the US producer Chevron, the second-largest US oil group, reported its first quarterly loss since 2002.

Chevron suffered a loss of $588 million in the fourth quarter of last year, compared to a $3.5 billion profit for the same period in 2014. Oil and gas production in the US, where production costs are higher than the company’s international sites, was the weakest division, reporting a loss of $4.1 billion, compared to a profit of $3.3 billion in 2014. Profits from production outside the US came in at $2.1 billion, but this was a drop of 85 percent on the previous year’s results.

ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, recorded a smaller drop in profits than its rivals. Its profits came in at $2.78 billion, a fall of 58 percent compared to 2014. However, the company committed itself to a further 25 percent reduction in capital spending this year, following a 19 percent reduction in 2015.

Shell reported that it will sell off $10 billion worth of assets, following an 87 percent collapse in its annual profits to $1.9 billion. Shell chief executive Ben Van Beurden said the company would make “substantial changes” in the face of the falling oil price. It has eliminated 7,500 jobs and intends to cut the workforce by a further 2,800.

Further “restructuring” could flow from Shell’s takeover of rival BG, a deal valued at £35 billion. The merger is based on calculations that the price for crude will be at least $60 per barrel, compared to the present level of near $30 and predictions that it will remain at these levels for a considerable period.

The worst-placed of the oil majors appears to be BP. It recorded a loss of $5.2 billion for 2015, its worst-ever result, compared to an $8.1 billion profit for 2014. Following write-downs on the value of its North Sea fields, where many of its operations are unprofitable at current prices, it made a loss of $2.2 billion in the fourth quarter alone, compared to a loss of $969 million during the same period in 2014. BP announced that it will axe about 7,000 jobs across its operations over the next two years, amounting to 9 percent of its workforce.

Overall, the energy sector is expected to cut spending to $522 billion this year, following a 22 percent reduction to $595 billion in 2015. This will be the first time since 1986 that the industry has reduced spending two years in a row.

The downturn in oil prices led to a decision by Standard & Poor’s to cut the credit ratings of leading US oil and gas companies, including Chevron. The rating agency downgraded three US shale oil and gas producers—Continental Resources, Southwestern Energy and Hunt Oil—from investment grade to “junk” status.

Exxon kept its triple A credit rating but S&P put it on watch for a possible downgrade, saying it will make a decision within the next 90 days. S&P said it will use longer-term projections in determining its credit ratings. The impact of the slump can be seen in those projections. In December 2014, S&P based its calculations on a long-term price for Brent crude of $85 per barrel. That has been cut to $40 for this year, rising only to $50 by 2018.

Apart from lowered credit ratings, the fall in the oil price is impacting on the financial system, especially via US banks, notably smaller regional banks, which have funded shale oil operations. Figures for January reveal that the main contributor to the 5 percent drop in Wall Street’s S&P 500 share index was the fall in bank stocks.

The impact of lower prices has yet to be fully felt because oil producers have been able to cover their position by taking out future selling contracts at higher than current market prices. As those contracts expire, however, some shale producers will become unprofitable unless there is a significant upturn in oil prices.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Oil Price Fall Brings Significant Losses for Big Producers

The Great Credit Unwind! Deepening Weakness of Real Global Economy. Financial Failure, COMEX and the Gold Market

February 5th, 2016 by Bill Holter

The action in nearly all markets worldwide changed on a dime since January 1st. I am not sure “what or why” the change coincided so closely with the calendar year but the rate hike by the Fed is the leading candidate. As for the real global economy, there is certainly evidence the weakness of late last year has deepened significantly. The pace of collapse has shifted gears as evidenced by trade, earnings and even central banks. Japan’s new policy of negative interest rates followed by new Fed trial balloons of same speak volumes about “stress”.

Another area of stress is change in the action on COMEX. I have documented over the past year several delivery months where there were more contracts standing than registered gold available for delivery. The current Feb. contract has gone past first notice day with 13.3 tons of gold standing for 4.5 tons of registered gold. A very good synopsis of this was done yesterday by Craig Hemke at TF Metals Connecting The Comex Dots I encourage you to read this as Craig documents the recent shell game with inventory.

It is important to understand there are huge changes going on at COMEX. First I need to correct something I wrote last week. I said “it doesn’t make sense for the shorts to not deliver on the first or second day of the delivery period and wait until the end of the month”. This is absolutely correct, but I wrote this in late Jan. … so the deliveries we saw were some FIFTY PLUS days after the delivery period began on Dec. 1st! Are they really allowed to wait 55 days to make a delivery? Just to make it clear, it make no sense whatsoever to not make a delivery on day one or two because the storage costs must be paid. I absolutely stand by the most obvious reason not to deliver is because the gold was not available. “Waiting” to deliver earns NOTHING and costs money, Wall Street does not work this way!

We are also seeing another VERY BIG change in this delivery month. While we saw very few “serves” early in delivery months in the last couple of years, this has changed. We saw 58 on Monday, 546 Tues., and 158 on Wednesday. It is my opinion we are now seeing serious rebellion in the queue! It has been contended which I firmly agree with, “cash settlement” with premium has been prevalent on the COMEX for quite some time. I now believe there are some standing and DEMANDING delivery and refusing cash. This I believe is evidenced by gold in backwardation all the way out to October. I won’t spend the time to explain again why here, but backwardation CANNOT exist in gold in a correctly functioning market and one where the rule of law actually exists.

No matter how big of an apologist you are, it cannot be argued that a situation where more gold standing for delivery than is claimed to exist is a “good” thing. This is a VERY dangerous situation of potential default and one where by hook or by crook has been avoided to this point. Is it this delivery month where delivery fails? I do not know. I do know we live in a world where China is importing every single gold ounce produced on the planet leaving nothing else leftover for the rest of the world. This situation can only last or continue as long as vaults have gold and the owners are willing to fill the deficit between supply and demand. I will say this, the global financial system will completely seize up and close for trading once gold delivery fails. This will only take 48 hours after a failure, and the ability to procure metal, sell stocks and bonds, or do anything else financial will not be an option.

Liquidity is drying up and no Ponzi scheme can survive without “new juice”! A very basic and core problem with no solution other than resetting, rebooting and revamping the system itself! We are living a global margin call that cannot be met. The system is clearly broken and you do not need to be a rocket scientist or even have higher than an 8th grade education to understand this. No matter what you look at, it is clear something is very very wrong. I have written I believed a force majeure will occur within the gold and silver complexes. I have written of “truth bombs” being dropped by Mr. Putin The Ultimate “Truth Bomb” – The East Knows The West Is Bankrupt and the Chinese holding a silver “Kill Switch” in China

http://www.silverseek.com/article/kill-switch-13503?quicktabs_most_popular_tabs=0 .

A financial failure larger than any and all past crashes will end in social unrest all over the world. When credit ceases and breaks down, it will be felt first and foremost in “distribution”. The distribution of everyday and necessary goods will be interrupted. Empty stomachs will fan the flames of angry mobs. Those who have lost the fruit from their life’s work will be more interested in their next meal versus wealth. I stand by everything I have written on these topics. The greatest credit unwind of all time is unfolding right now before your very eyes!

I am sure this article will fan the flames in “troll town”! Please attack the logic, do not say “it will never happen because it has not”. Do not point at the prices of gold and silver and say “see, you are wrong”. The manipulation of markets, all markets is so obvious even an idiot can see it with very dark sunglasses on! I expect we will see “gap” openings in nearly everything very shortly … Please do something, anything, to protect yourself and loved ones!

Standing watch,

Bill Holter
Holter-Sinclair collaboration
Comments welcome,  [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Great Credit Unwind! Deepening Weakness of Real Global Economy. Financial Failure, COMEX and the Gold Market

An Improbable Solution. Washington Must Halt “Its Illegal War to Overthrow the Syrian Government of Assad”. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard

February 5th, 2016 by Philip Giraldi

Delusions on Syria prevail in official Washington

Tulsi Gabbard is one brave Congresswoman. She has challenged her party and the president saying that it’s time for Washington to halt its “illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad. I don’t think Assad should be removed. If Assad is removed and overthrown, ISIS, al Qaeda, Al Nustra, these Islamic extremist groups will walk straight in and take over all of Syria … they will be even stronger.”

Indeed, Washington’s senseless policy in Syria has been hanging out there like overripe fruit for quite some time with the mainstream media instead marching at lockstep to the tune being whistled by a large disengaged and unaccountable White House. Gabbard might go one step further to ask why Syria is the way it is in the first place since that would question Administration priorities under Democrats as well as Republicans, both of which have emphasized eliminating al-Assad for no conceivable reason that has anything to do with actual American interests.

Much has been made of Washington groupthink, which is the concept that when a meeting of senior staffers is held everyone will veer towards a point of view that is being espoused by whoever called the meeting, be they the president or one of the cabinet secretaries. It is also reflected in the output of foundations and think tanks, which rely on government access as well as funding from beneficiaries of the war economy. Current groupthink, rejected by Gabbard, is that removing al-Assad is somehow an essential precondition for any settlement of Syria’s torment.

Another prevalent groupthink that is sometimes linked to the Syria issue is that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is somehow a reincarnation of Josef Stalin and that today’s Russia is actually the Soviet Union, ready, willing and able to expand into Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Though considerable opposition to those two viewpoints can be noted in the alternative media it is not listened to in the White House.

Yet another kind of groupthink prevails within the government bureaucracies themselves, compounding the problem. From my own experience, analysts at CIA very often were scrupulous in their judgements on developments overseas but a funny thing would happen at Agency headquarters as information made its way from the ground floor up to the seventh floor where the political appointee mandarins would preside. It would become politicized and any viewpoints diametrically opposed to what prevailed at the consumer level in Congress and in the White House would be mitigated or even excised. Such is the nature of bureaucracy, which exists to support the status quo andinter alia requires a satisfied audience to prosper.

And the press fails to do its part to correct the listing ship. The rubbish that appears in the mainstream media under the rubric of “informed opinion” bears a large part of the blame because it continues to create a mythical magical kingdom in which Americans all wear white hats and go about slaying dragons because it is good for the whole wide world, even if those heathens don’t appreciate it. That is what Americans like to think about themselves apparently, all contrary evidence notwithstanding.

A piece on Syria that appeared in the Washington Post before Christmas exemplifies precisely what is wrong with the punditry that shapes the narrative that appears to drive the national consensus on what to do about terrorism and related issues. It is “Obama and Kerry’s wishful thinking on Syria,” by Frederic C. Hof, currently a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center. Hof was an army officer who had extensive service in the Middle East. He is, somewhat uncharacteristically, an actual expert on the Arab world and speaks Arabic. He joined the State Department in 2009 after an interlude in the private sector as the President and CEO of AALC, limited company, an international business consulting and project finance firm formerly known as Armitage Associates LC. In 2012 Hof served as President Barack Obama’s Special Adviser for Transition in Syria.

Hof is a bright and highly competent guy whose professional life has been closely linked to the U.S. government version of reality, a reality in which Washington calls the shots and is empowered to “draw red lines.” Relative to the U.S., all other governments are either client states or adversaries who can be disregarded or bullied into compliance. In October he wrote:

“With regard to ISIL, a professional ground combat component provided by regional powers is desperately needed to work with coalition aircraft to sweep this abomination from Syria and permit a governmental alternative to the Assad regime to take root inside Syria. With central and eastern Syria free of both the regime and ISIL, an all-Syrian national stabilization force can be built. Western desires for a negotiated end to the Syrian crisis would be based, under these circumstances, on more than a wish and a hope. The United States should neither seek nor shy away from confrontation with Russian forces in Syria. Moscow will not like it if its client’s ability to perform mass murder is impeded. Russia will not be pleased if ISIL, its false pretext for military intervention in Syria, is swept from the table. Ideally, Russia will not elect to escort regime aircraft on their mass homicide missions. And it would be difficult for even Russian President Vladimir Putin to articulate outrage if ISIL is crushed militarily. But if Russia seeks out armed confrontation with the United States in Syria, it would be a mistake for Washington to back down. People like Putin will push until they hit steel. And he will not stop in Syria.”

The op-ed is saying several things, which most likely reflect the Washington consensus on foreign policy. First, it advocates a U.S. leading role in Syria in support of a currently non-existent and unlikely to exist regional force to fight ISIS thereby creating an alternative government enabling the removal of al-Assad from power and winding up with a “Western desired” democracy. Second, it characterizes Russia as supporting “mass homicide” in Syria and urges the U.S. to confront it militarily if necessary as Moscow is intent on expansion. That means that Syria somehow has become a vital American interest, important enough to go to war with Russia.

Hof’s more recent foray in the Post makes a number of similar points. First, that the Syrian civil war cannot end as long as al-Assad remains in power is described as an “objective truth” that adversaries like Russia and Iran refuse to accept. Al-Assad is described as a “barrel bomber in chief.” Iran, in particular, should “grasp the chance to become a normal state.” Hof likens the Syrian, Iranian and Russian leadership to Hitler thirty years ago in that they are being given a pass by the West and avers that they “know that Assad is the single greatest obstacle to a united front against Islamic State.” Iran is motivated by propping up a client state while Russia is into the game desirous of “humiliating the United States by preserving Assad.” The op-ed goes on to claim that delaying action for thousands of Syrians will mean “people slaughtered, maimed, stampeded, starved, tortured and raped by Assad’s people” and reiterates the call for “professional ground forces…under U.S. command” to deal simultaneously with both al-Assad and ISIS.

Given all of the above, it is no wonder that many of us find American foreign and national security policy incomprehensible. First of all, by what Act of God does the United States have a Special Adviser for Transition in Syria? Why does that position even exist? How the White House react if the Chinese or Russians were to create a similar bureaucracy tasked with subverting the manifestly corrupt U.S. institutions and even arming “rebels” to do the job?

One suspects that antagonism towards Damascus is rooted in the fact that the United States government have been working hard in a neoconservative driven effort supported by Israel to subvert the Syrian regime ever since President George W. Bush signed the Syria Accountability Act in 2004. Al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons on his own people is frequently cited as a justification for armed intervention, but there is considerable controversy over the incident at Ghouta in 2013, with many observers believing that the attack was staged “false flag” by the rebels possibly aided by the Turkish intelligence service to implicate the Syrian government. And it is easy to forget that before Syria under al-Assad became an enemy it was considered friendly, having participated in the U.S. led coalition that ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 and also having supported Washington’s counter-terrorism “rendition” program post-9/11.

It is simplistic to see everything as a problem created by the Syrian government, Russia and Iran, all of whom have been described as “adversaries” of the United States even though they are actively fighting ISIS. That label would be comforting if one were a reader of the Rupert Murdoch media but Tehran’s and Moscow’s desire to stabilize the Syrian government position as a prelude to negotiations for a settlement is not exactly wrongheaded, as Congresswoman Gabbard has noted. And any narrative’s thrust more-or-less depends on where one starts. To my mind the blame for the mess in Syria and Iraq coupled with the rise of ISIS should be put squarely where it belongs: at the White House under our two most recent presidents and their advisers. The rot began in 2003 when Iraq was invaded. At that time both Baghdad and Damascus were quiet, stable and terrorist free even if they were not democracies. Neither threatened the United States and neither threatens the U.S. to this day, which makes one wonder at why al-Assad has been elevated to enemy-in-chief status by the White House and media.

The inside the beltway dismissal of Iran and Russia is classic Washington groupthink. Iran may indeed not be a “normal” nation, but that just might be due to threats against it emanating from the United States and Israel since the foundation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. We are currently witnessing the U.S. Congress and Israel cranking up the pressure to defeat implementation of the nuclear program agreement recently signed with Tehran, an effort that suggests that no matter what it does or doesn’t do Iran will never be seen as normal or even acceptable by most of the powerbrokers in Washington.

And the denigration of Russia is another given, complete with the often heard but ridiculous claim that Moscow is out to “humiliate” the U.S., which often comes coupled with a reference to Hitler. Russia may have a government that is not to our liking but it has a serious and legitimate interest in preventing the spillover of Islamic insurgency into its own heavily Muslim southern federated states. Creating a cartoon image of Vladimir Putin as someone who has to be taught a lesson even though he has in fact been a largely realistic, restrained and rational player in his foreign policy, is not a serious argument.

Stating that Russia is only interested in propping up a client and enabling mass murder is both sloppy and does not allow for other considerations that might actually be both sensible and legitimate while a willingness to confront major power Russia militarily over unimportant Syria is something closely akin to madness.

And attributing all the mayhem in Syria to its government is similarly myopic in that it ignores the other players on the ground, to include groups supported by America’s nominal Arab and Turkish allies that the United States calls “terrorist.”

The apparent willingness among policy makers to put U.S. troops on the ground in Syria against both its government and ISIS flies against all reason given the poor track record of White House initiated military interventions over the past fifteen years. The creation of a “stabilization force” without any current Syrian government participation is laughable as even President Obama has conceded that the identification and deployment of “moderate rebels” is a bit of a fantasy. And Syria is not taking place in a vacuum. Afghanistan is rapidly sliding back under Taliban control, Iraq is chaotic and its closest friend is Iran while Libya is anarchical. Another intervention? No thanks.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Improbable Solution. Washington Must Halt “Its Illegal War to Overthrow the Syrian Government of Assad”. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard

Planned Turkish Invasion of Syria? In Close Liaison with Washington

February 5th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

All Turkish military actions are approved by or complicit with Washington. Erdogan would never act unilaterally on his own, not even aggressively against his own Kurdish population, slaughtering civilians in cold blood.

Does he intend a Syrian incursion, unprovoked aggression, if launched? Russian evidence suggests it, according to Defense Department spokesman General Igor Konashenkov, saying:

We have serious grounds to suspect intensive preparations by Turkey for a military invasion on the territory of the sovereign state of Syria. We are recording more and more signs of concealed preparations by the Turkish military.

Days earlier, Russian video evidence revealed cross-border Turkish shelling on northern Latakia province Syrian populated areas.

US-led NATO officials “and numerous organizations allegedly protecting human rights in Syria, despite our call to respond to these actions, still remain silent,” despite irrefutable evidence of Turkish aggression, along with supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups, Konashenkov explained.

Turkey wants evidence of its illegal military activities along the Syrian border suppressed. It denied a Russian observation flight over its territory, scheduled from February 1 – 5, permitted under the Open Skies Treaty (OST), up to a range of 1,900 km, with Turkish specialists onboard, after earlier expressing no pre-conditions or restrictions.

In 1992, 34 nations signed OST, effective in 2002, including Russia, America, Turkey, EU countries and Canada. Treaty objectives are to foster transparency, monitor fulfillment of arms control agreements, and improve capabilities to prevent crises.

Konashenkov called denying Russia’s legitimate right to conduct an observation flight over Turkish territory according to OST provisions “a dangerous precedent and an attempt to conceal illegal military activity near the border with Syria.”

Russian satellite and other intelligence can keep close watch on what Erdogan may intend, including possible cross-border belligerence against Syria.

In 2015, 32 foreign observation flights over Russian territory took place, according to OST principles, four by Turkey.

If Erdogan intends aggression against northern Syria, Russian intelligence will prove it. Key is how Putin and Assad respond.

Neither leader wants greater war than already, nor will they tolerate naked aggression, threatening their national security.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Planned Turkish Invasion of Syria? In Close Liaison with Washington

Europe Is Disintegrating While Its Citizens Watch Indifferent

February 5th, 2016 by Roberto Savio

We are witnessing the slow agony of the dream of European integration, disintegrating without a single demonstration occuring anywhere, among its 500 million citizens. It is clear that European institutions are in an existential crisis but the debate is only at intergovernmental level.

This proves clearly that European citizens do not feel close to Brussels. Gone are the 1950s, when young people mobilized in the Youth Federalist Movement, with activists from the Federal Movement led by Altiero Spinelli, and the massive campaign for a Europe that would transcend national boundaries, a rallying theme of the intellectuals of the time.

Roberto Savio

Roberto Savio

It has been a crescendo of crisis. First came the North-South divide, with a North that did not want to rescue the South, and made austerity a monolithic taboo, with Germany as its inflexible leader. Greece was the chosen place to clash and win, even if its budget was just 4 percent of the whole European Union. The front for fiscal discipline and austerity easily overran those pleading for development and growth as a priority and it alienated many of citizens caught in the fight.

Then came the East-West divide. It became clear that the countries which were under the Soviet Union, joined the EU purely for economic reasons, and did not identify with so called European values, the basis for the founding treaties. Solidarity was not only ignored, but actively rejected, first with Greece, and now with the refugees. There are now two countries, first Hungary and now Poland, which explicitly reject the “European model and values”, one to defend an autocratic model of governance, and the other Christian values, ignoring any declarations emanating from Brussels.

At the same time, another ominous development emerged. British Prime Minister David Cameron used threats to get special conditions, or in order to leave the EU altogether. At Davos, he explicitly said that Britain was in the EU for the market, but rejects everything else, and especially any possible further integration. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been sending soothing signs, and all European countries are in the process of trying to recover as much sovereignty as possible. Therefore, whatever Britain may get in the end will serve as a benchmark for everyone else. It is revealing that in Britain, the pro-Europe lobby is run by the financial and economic sector, and there is no citizen’s movement.

All this is happening within a framework of economic stagnation that even unprecedented financial injections from the European Central Bank have not been able to lift.

The list of countries in trouble does not cover only countries from the South. Leaders of fiscal rectitude, like the Netherlands and Finland, are in serious difficulty. The only country which is doing relatively well, Germany, enjoys a positive trade balance with the rest of Europe, has a much lower rate of interest mainly due to its generally better performance; it has been calculated that over half of its positive budget comes from its asymmetric relations with the rest of Europe. Yet, Germany has stubbornly refused to use some of these revenues to create any pact to socialize its assets, like a European Fund to bail out countries, or anything similar. Hardly a shining example of solidarity….as its minister of finance, Wolfgang Schauble, famously said, “we are not going to give the gains that we have sweated for to those who have not worked hard the way we have…”

Finally, the refugee crisis has been the last blow to an institution which was already breathing with great effort. Last year, more than 1,3 million people escaping conflicts in Iraq, Libya and Syria, arrived in Europe. This year, according the High Commissioner for Refugees, at least another million are expected to find their way to Europe.

What has been happening, shows the European reality. The Commission determined that 40.000 people, a mere drop in the ocean, should be relocated from Syria and Ethiopia. This led to a furious process of bargaining, with the Eastern European countries flatly refusing to take part and in spite of threats by the Commission. As of today, the total number of people who have relocated is a mere 201.

Meanwhile Angela Merkel decided to open Germany up to one million refugees, mainly Syrians. But a smart interpretation of the Treaty on Refugees made clear that economic refugees (as well as climate) were excluded, and it was then declared that the Balkans were safe and secure, thereby excluding any Europeans coming to Germany by way of Albania, Kosovo and other countries not yet part of the EU.

It is interesting that, at the same time, Montenegro was invited to join Nato, which, by coincidence also serves to increase the containment of Russia, thanks to a standing army of 3.000. But of course, the flood of people made it difficult to process the paperwork required, and so each country was forced to resort to its own way of doing things, without any relation with Brussels.

Austria declared that it would admit only 37.500 asylum applications.

Denmark, besides creating a campaign to announce to refugees that they were not welcome, passed a law that delays family reunification for three years, and authorises the authorities to seize asylum seekers’ cash and jewels exceeding US$1.400.

Sweden announced that it would give shorter residence permits, and that strict controls will be imposed on trains coming from Denmark.

Finland and Holland have indicated that they will immediately expel all those who do not fit under strict norms as refugees. Great Britain, which was responsible together with the United States for the Iraq invasion (from which ISIS was born) has announced that it will take 27.000 refugees.

There has been a veritable flourishing of wall construction, constructed in Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia and Austria. Meanwhile Europe tried to buy the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with three billion euros, as a way to stop the flow of refugees but it didn’t work. Now Greece is the culprit, because it was not able to adequately process the nearly 800.000 people who transitted the country.

Austria has asked to exclude Greece from the Schengen agreement, and move European borders “further north” . This chapter is now being concluded by the German initiative to introduce, once again national border controls, for a period of two years. Last year, there were 56 million trucks crossing between countries, and every day 1,7 million people crossed between borders.

To eliminate the Schengen agreement for free movement of Europeans, would be a very powerful signal. But more critically are the imminent political changes which see anti-European and xenophobic parties all riding the wave of fear and insecurity crossing Europe.

In Germany, where Angela Merkel is increasingly losing support, the Party for an Alternative, which has been relatively marginal, could achieve representation in at least three provinces. Across Europe, from France to Italy, from Great Britain to the Netherlands, right wing parties are on the rise.

These parties all use some form of left wing rhetoric: Let us renationalize industries and banks, increase social safety nets, fight against neoliberal globalization…

Hungary has heavily taxed foreign banks to get them to leave, and Poland is using similar language. Their target is very simple: the unemployed, the under employed, retirees, all those with precarious livelihoods, those who feel that they have been left out of the political system and dream of a glorious yesterday. If it is working in the United States with the likes of DonaldTrump, it will work here.

Therefore, there is no doubt that at this moment a referendum for Europe would never pass. Citizens do not feel that this is ‘their’ Europe. This is a serious problem for a democratic Europe.

Will the European Union survive? Probably, but it will be more a kind of common market for finance and business rather than a citizen’s project. It will also hasten the reduction of European power in the world, and the loss of European identity, once the most revolutionary project in modern history.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe Is Disintegrating While Its Citizens Watch Indifferent

The Return of ‘Syria Danny’, as Actor Danny Dayem Turns up in Latest Rami Jarah Fictional Short?

February 5th, 2016 by Vanessa Beeley

Has Danny Abdul Dayem been resurrected? 

In Rami Jarrah’s recent Ana Press academy award winner,  “ISIS wherefore art thou ISIS” [Edited title] we saw a surprise guest appearance, either from Danny Abdul Dayem’s doppelganger or Danny himself has been brought out of retirement by ANA Press.

In this artful and seductive portrayal of Aleppo, threatened exclusively by ISIS, the demonic Russians and uber demonic SAA, we see Danny II speaking in his inimitable lisping, mumbling style “No we are against DAESH” [my edit] but we love the good villains like Al Nusra, even when they shoot a few civilians in the head, its not a problem the White Helmets will pick up the body parts.

Part II – Syria’s White Helmets: War By Way of Deception ~ ‘Moderate Executioners’

Rami Jarrah, the ultimate smooth operator has honed his propaganda skills since the early days when he and Danny romped their way through their pre-prepared scripts with far less aplomb.  Avaaz or associated government agencies must have invested extensively in Jarrah’s stage skills, or perhaps packed him off to the Purpose Institute of Dramatic Arts for some advanced “integrity” coaching.

Danny now2

In this particular fiction short, he thrusts the microphone under the noses of the alleged “residents” of Aleppo, one could be excused for thinking it’s the usual array of Al Nusra occupiers spruced up for camera and reciting the lines given to them, as they all verbatim assure us that they do not support ISIS.  One does notice, however that they do not state who it is they support, clever omission from Director, Rami Jarrah.

There are many dastardly sleights of hand in this film.

One minor one is that Danny II ears are well hidden by his new “look”, a primary biometric identifying process prevented.

Rami camera

Hollywood at work. Rami Jarrah “intrepid reporter”

Director, Rami Jarrah displays a mastery of the dark art of propaganda.  He carefully insinuates that Russia is bombing Aleppo, but then qualifies by stating “Russia sending war planes, overhead to this AREA“, which is not tantamount to bombing. He gives no specifics, shows no planes, offers no proof which is normal practice for these Manhattan trained and produced manipulators of opinion. He asksloaded questions that demand a simple and one- way- street reply.  He fails, yet again, to even mention the maiming and mutilation of civilians by the Al Nusra “moderate rebel” Hell Cannon.

This is not journalism, this is not objective research, this is not investigative analysis, this is propaganda at its most insidious.

This is pure cinema to sell tickets to the brainwashed and increase box office ratings for the US, NATO, Gulf States and of course Hollywood moguls, Israel.

Jarrah and Danny go way back.  They were both part of the 2011 agitprop shop established by Avaaz with public money to the tune of over $ 1.2 million, its purpose to produce waves of anti Syrian Government propaganda and facilitate “regime change”.  Jarrah, Dayem and Wisam Tarif were the rainbow boys of the Syrian colour revolution.

While Danny was being caught out fabricating the bombing and shelling stories for CNN, Jarrah was a little more cunning.  However, his 2011/12 reports are still full of holes and inaccuracies.  Under his then pseudonym of Alexander Page, Jarrah announces on the BBC that the Syrian Navy is shelling Latakia, a story later deconstructed and utterly discredited by inhabitants and analysts inside Latakia.  See Sharmine Narwani’s report, suitably entitled “Hollywood in Homs & Idlib”

It reminds me of August 2011 news reports of warships shelling the coastal city of Latakia. Three separate sources – two opposition figures from the city and an independent western journalist – later insisted there were no signs of shelling. It was also the first time I learned from Syrians that you can burn rubber tires on rooftops to simulate the after-effects of exploded shells.” ~ Sharmine Narwani

When we look at Danny and Jarrah’s  timelines from 2011, the inception of the long incubated war on Syria, we see that they run parallel.  Both grew up and were educated in the UK.  Once in Syria, Danny was based in Homs and his rambling, excitable reports were the mainstay of the Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN anti Assad incitement. Rami Jarrah was based in and around Damascus, where he also churned out breathlessly emotive & well scripted renditions of the “burgeoning revolution” theme tune.

They both fled Syria to Cairo around September 2011.  Danny states in a few interviews that he worked in “an activists operations room” in Cairo.  Jarrah gave birth to another Soros test tube baby,  ANA Press, in Cairo.  Coincidence or synergy?

So, as Danny’s media, star-is-born rise to fame, meteorically crashed, Jarrah’s notoriety rose to prominence in the propaganda celebrity A list.

In January 2016, Jarrah even attained the dizzying heights of selfie taking with Turkish President,  Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a conference in Istanbul to discuss the issues faced by Journalists aka Empire agents, actors and movie directors in Syria & how Erdogan should resolve them. Very convenient for Erdogan who has been deflecting bad press for months now, resorting to prosecution and imprisonment for those in Turkish media,  who are highlighting his instrumental involvement in the war on Syria.

rami and erdogan 2

Rami Jarrah and “Revolution” badge wearer Erdogan

Erdogan, oligarch, chief facilitator of terrorism in Syria, oil baron, arms & chemical weapons supplier, Aleppo factory bandit.  Dr Al Jaafari, permanent Syrian representative to the UN referred to the theft of 1441 factories dismantled and stolen from Aleppo by Turkey, in his recent address to the UN and Media.

Erdogan is working with anti Syrian Government agitator,  Rami Jarrah, on overcoming obstacles to the “regime change” propaganda stream.  Ana Press is now based in Southern Turkey and operates with the approval and protection of the Turkish government, a monumental indictment of Rami Jarrah’s claims of neutrality and impartiality, or even Journalism.

Please also note, that in the “selfie”, Erdogan is seen sporting the 3 star “revolution” badge.  One wonders when NATO members and country leaders became such cartoon statesmen, displaying unbelievable moral deficit and blatant partisanship.  Perhaps Sergey Lavrov should be seen in Geneva, with Assad hats and lapel pins?

Perhaps not, because Lavrov takes his position as world representative of his nation and his nations interests very seriously.  Lavrov would not stoop to such infantile displays of Russia’s allegiances if his life depended upon it because Russia and the world depends upon his diplomatic integrity and moral fortitude, not to mention gravitas. An element of statesmanship that seems to be missing from Erdogan’s repertoire.

Dag Hammarskjold,  a statesman of honour who challenged the US and UK imperialist agenda at every turn and who was very probably assassinated for his principles, once said:

You cannot play with the animal in you without becoming wholly animal, play with falsehood without forfeiting your right to truth, play with cruelty without losing your sensitivity of mind. He who wants to keep his garden tidy does not reserve a plot for weeds

Never has there been a time when this proclamation can be so universally applied.  Syria, it appears has drawn every dreg of humanity out into the open.  Erdogan has done more than reserve a plot for “weeds”, he has sown them, watered them, nurtured them and harvested them multiple times.

Evidently, Jarrah has been cultivated in the Empire agents of “change” greenhouse and like all genetically modified “plants” is bearing copious, shiny, juicy fruit with very little substance or nutritional value, beautifully packaged, utterly tasteless, and rotten to the core.

If this is Danny in Jarrah’s Al Nusra promo video, a once discontinued strain of weed has returned to our screens courtesy of Soros and Ana Press. A failed state actor, a discredited fifth columnist perhaps being given a swansong, walk- on- part,  in recognition of services once rendered to Empire studios?

The Empire film industry is a fickle one, today’s stars are tomorrow’s has-beens.  The red-carpet divas like Jarrah, now in ascendancy, will outlive their purpose and be discarded like hundreds if not thousands before them.  Its a lonely life as a down and out ex state- actor, there is no refuge from the consequences of your cynical deception and no protection will be forthcoming from the movie moguls and their henchman once the stage door has been locked and bolted behind you.

Somebody placed the shuttle in your hand: somebody who had already arranged the threads. ~ Dag Hammarskjold

Syria is unravelling the threads…

END.

As a little comic relief, we have created our own Truth Academy movie of the “Return of Syrian Danny?”

 

Malcolm X

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Return of ‘Syria Danny’, as Actor Danny Dayem Turns up in Latest Rami Jarah Fictional Short?

Haiti’s Rigged Elections. Disinformation and Propaganda 101

February 5th, 2016 by Dady Chery

The fight for Haiti is on. Since Haitians scuttled the fraudulent elections and started to make their own plans, the foreign occupation has become desperate to concoct a pseudo-Haitian solution to the electoral impasse. A disinformation campaign from mainstream news organs like the Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, and the Miami Herald is the vanguard of a colonial attempt to take Haiti. Here I expose three lies that they are promoting.

Lie #1. The second-round elections were cancelled because of violence

Jan 23, 2016 The Guardian,“Haiti cancels presidential election as violence erupts”
Jan 23, 2016 International Business Times, “Haiti: Presidential elections postponed as violence breaks out in Port-au-Prince”

Date: March 20, 2011 Place: Haiti Credit: OAS

Although there was violence in the run up to the January 24 elections, this is not why they were cancelled. The real reason these elections were ditched is because they would have been completely boycotted. On January 18, the second-placed candidate, Jude Celestin, formallyannounced that he would not run, and he called for a boycott in the strongest terms. A group of eight (G-8) Haitian opposition presidential candidates, plus Fanmi Lavalas and many others, also asked their partisans to boycott the elections. Furthermore, several Haitian organizations bowed out that were supposed to monitor the elections. Had the elections been allowed to proceed, there would have only one candidate and no voters. Worse, Haiti would have taught the world an important lesson on how to oppose rigged elections.

AhmadHammoud-Blindedbyjournalism

Lie #2. Haiti’s parliament is reassembled and functional

Jan 10, 2016 Miami Herald, “Martelly’s one-man rule comes to an end”
Jan 11, 2016 Miami Herald, “Haiti parliament returns after a year”
Jan 12, 2016 Yahoo, “Haiti parliament returns after a year of inaction”

There is still no parliament in Haiti, because the legislative elections were even more fraudulent than the presidential ones.

• To begin with, the Martelly regime added 19 new seats to the 100-member Lower House without explanation.
• Thirty-one percent of potential candidates for the Senate and Lower House were dismissed without explanation before the elections.
• In the Lower House, only 8 of 119 MPs were elected in the disastrous first-round on August 9, 2015; 4 were from Parti Haitien Tet Kale (PHTK), the political party of occupation President Michel Martelly.
• In the Senate, only 2 of the 20 members were elected in the first round: Jean-Renel Senatus, who had been Martelly’s attorney general, and Youri Latortue, who had been prime minister through the political purges and mineral-rights sales that immediately followed Aristide’s removal in 2004.
• In the second-round elections in October, 57 percent of the examined voting records had no signature or digital print, and 47 percent had fake ID numbers. Unsurprisingly, nearly all the incumbent and opposition MPs lost their posts and were replaced with people from PHTK and related parties (Bouclier, AAA, and KID)

JamesVaughan-WWWIIPropaganda

Lie #3. Haiti opposition rejects Martelly’s plan for a new government

Feb 2, 2016 Reuters, “Haiti opposition rejects president’s plan for interim government”
Feb 2, 2016 Latin America News Dispatch, “ Haiti Opposition Rejects Martelly’s Plan for Interim Government”

It is Haiti’s G-8 that, on January 25, 2016, proposed a plan for an Interim Consensus Government, to verify the election results, dismiss those who benefited from the fraud, and reorganize all the elections. Since then, a broader group of Haitians has been refining the plan. Martelly has rejected these plans on the advice of the international community: specifically the United States, France, and their lackeys in the Organization of American States (OAS), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), and the United Nations Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). The OAS has presented itself to the world as a mediator, although it is hardly impartial in this affair. It was implicated in rigging the elections of 2010 that brought Martelly to power, and it found no fault in the elections of 2015 despite overwhelming evidence of fraud. The current head of the OAS election observation mission is Celso Amorim, a Brazilian who engineered his country’s leading role in 2004 as a Praetorian Guard for the US in the so-called UN peacekeeping force when he was minister of foreign affairs. Between 2012 and 2015, with Rafael Correa’s consent and the OAS’ approval, Ecuador trained a paramilitary army for Martelly without consulting with the Haitian people.

OAS_OASsignstoobserveHaiti

For Haitians only

The OAS delegation has no-doubt ordered its handpicked Haitian parliament and Martelly to choose an acceptable provisional prime minister or president to organize a new round of fraudulent presidential elections but no new parliamentary elections. We may expect that these orders will be presented as the “Haitian” solutions that have resulted from the supposed arbitration of talks between Martelly and the parliament. This is why the mainstream press has worked so diligently to legitimize Haiti’s bogus parliament in the minds of readers. The OAS and UN will not get their way this time. They usually threaten to declare Haiti a failed state when Haitians try to safeguard the country’s sovereignty, but their attempts at intimidation no longer impress Haitians. Furthermore, the international community’s conduct in Haiti is having worldwide repercussions. For example, the UN has already lost a peacekeeping contract in Burundi, partly because its blue helmets are now seen as an invading army. The occupier has swallowed a sharp bone with Haiti. It is better to regurgitate it… and soon. The alternative is too costly.

LucdeLeeuw-Newspaper

Sources: Haiti Chery | Dady Chery is the author of We Have Dared to Be Free. | Photo one by Zarko Drincic; two and five from OAS; image three from Ahmad Hammoud; photo four from James Vaughan archives, and six by Luc de Leeuw.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Haiti’s Rigged Elections. Disinformation and Propaganda 101

Russia’s Alleged Clandestine Funding of “Leftist” Political Parties in Europe

February 5th, 2016 by Oriental Review

According to a “sensational” article by the Telegraph, the US director of National Intelligence was recently instructed by Congress to “conduct a major review into Russian clandestine funding of European parties over the last decade.”

This disclosure – a classic “controlled leak” – is intended to warn disobedient yet popular political entities across Europe to scale back their ambitions to rebalance the roles and weight of their nation states within the European Union. Hungary’s Jobbik, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Italy’s Lega Nord, and France’s Front National are explicitly included in the US “warning list,” while other unnamed “parties” in Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands are being advised that they are “under a US security probe.”

Even the new British Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is suspected of flirting with the Russians. So, according to the sponsor of the Telegraph’s story, any European politician who dares to question NATO’s eastward expansion, the policy of anti-Russian sanctions, or the current European stance on the Ukrainian conflict is essentially a witting or unwitting tool of “Russia’s hybrid warfare.”

Well, that would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. In fact, any impartial observer would pose some simple questions: Why the hell do US intelligence agencies care about challenges to Europe’s internal security? Aren’t they the same agents who finance, recruit, and control countless political organizations, individuals, and media outlets on the European continent? Why are they so brazenly revealing their dominion over Europe?

A politically correct challenger would argue that the United States saved Europe from the “Communist threat” after the end of WWII, facilitated its speedy economic recovery, and is still safeguarding the continent under its nuclear umbrella. Perhaps. But a review of the historical background should not begin with the Marshall Plan. First of all, that was launched in April 1948. Since the Nazis capitulated in May 1945, a misinformed reader might deduce that the United States had been drafting a massive investment program for Europe for as long as three years, and … he would be wrong. At the Second “Octagon” Quebec Conference in September 1944, President Roosevelt and US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. submitted to the British PM Winston Churchill their Post-Surrender Program for Germany. That strictly confidential document envisaged the partition and complete deindustrialization of the German state. According to the plan, Germany was to be divided into two independent states. Its epicenters of mining and industry, including the Saar Protectorate, the Ruhr Valley, and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by France and Poland. Following are a few excerpts:

  • The [US] military forces upon entry into [German] industrial areas shall destroy all plants and equipment which cannot be removed immediately.
  • No longer than 6 months after the cessation of hostilities, all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action shall either be completely dismantled and removed from the area or completely destroyed.
  • All people within the area should be made to understand that this area will not again be allowed to become an industrial area. Accordingly, all people and their families within the area having special skills or technical training should be encouraged to migrate permanently from the area and should be as widely dispersed as possible.
  • All German radio stations and newspapers, magazines, weeklies, etc. shall be discontinued until adequate controls are established and an appropriate program formulated.

That was the original postwar recovery program for Germany, known as the Morgenthau Plan. The notorious Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067 (JCS 1067) addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Occupation Forces in Germany, which was officially issued in April 1945, was fully in line with that document.

Map-D-1939mod23var121

Partition of Germany according to Morgenthau Plan, 1944

The Morgenthau Plan very quickly proved to be a strategic mistake. The United States underestimated the ideological and cultural impact the Soviets would have on European societies. Left to their own judgment, American strategists failed to understand the attraction that a socialist system held for the majority of the population of the liberated nations. A vast spectrum of pro-socialist and pro-communist politicians began winning democratic elections and gaining political influence not only in Eastern Europe, but also in Greece, Italy, France, and other European states (Palmiro Togliattiand Maurice Thorez are just a few who could be named here). Thus Washington came to understand that its forced de-industrialization of Europe could result in Soviet-style reindustrialization and eventual Russian dominance of the continent… Therefore the US had to promptly replace the Morgenthau Plan with one named after Secretary of State George Marshall… Over the course of four years it provided Europe with $12 billion USD in credits, donations, leases, etc., for the purpose of buying … American machinery and other goods. Although the plan undoubtedly revived the economies of Europe, its biggest positive effect was on … the US economy itself! Simultaneously a wave of political repression was launched throughout Europe, most notably inGermany.

The media has largely forgotten about a Soviet initiative, proposed in 1950, to withdraw from the GDR and to reunify a neutral, non-aligned, demilitarized Germany within one year of the conclusion of a peace treaty. As a matter of fact, the resolution adopted at the Prague meeting of the foreign ministers of the Soviet Bloc on Oct. 21, 1950 proposed the establishment of an all-German Constituent Council, with equal representation from East and West Germany to prepare for the formation of an “all-German, sovereign, democratic, and peace-loving provisional government.” Needless to say, the US government and West German administration in Bohn strongly opposed the initiative. While a plebiscite on the issue “Are you against the remilitarization of Germany and in favor of the conclusion of a Peace Treaty in 1951?” was announced in both halves of the divided state, that referendum was held and officially acknowledged only in East Germany (with 96% voting “yes”).
vtek

The authorities in US-controlled West Germany failed to respond in a truly democratic manner.They refused to recognize thepreliminary results of the referendumthat had been held since February 1951 (of the 6.2 million federal citizens who had taken part by June 1951, 94.4% also voted “yes”) and introduced thedraconian cautious Criminal Law Amendment Act (the 1951 Blitzgesetz) on July 11. According to that legislation, anyone guilty of importing prohibited literature, criticizing the government, or having unreported contacts with representatives of the GDR, etc. was to be prosecuted for “state treason,” which was punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Consequently, between 1951 and 1968, 200,000 charges were brought against 500,000 members of the Communist Party and other left-wing groups in Germany under this law. Ten thousand people were sent to prison, and most of those who were  “cleared” of charges never resumed their political activities. Additional legal amendments in 1953 actually abolished the right to freely hold gatherings and demonstrations, and in 1956 the Communist Party of Germany was banned. [More details can be found in Daniel Burkholz’s 2012 documentary Verboten – Verfolgt – Vergessen (Forbidden-Followed-Forgotten. Half a Million Public Enemies), which is surprisingly unavailable on YouTube].

The political repression that occurred in Germany from the 1950s to the 1980s, compared to similar events in other European countries during the same period, is a very taboo topic. Operation Gladio inItaly, the crimes of the regime of the Black Colonels in Greece, and the controversial assassinations of realistic European politicians who openly advocated for historical compromise with the Soviet bloc – such as Italian PM Aldo Moro (1978) and Swedish PM Olof Palme (1986) – all received far more media attention. The revelations made by a former correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Udo Ulfkotte, in his book Gekaufte Journalisten (“Purchased Journalists”) about the mechanism of media control in Germany (remember the Morgenthau Plan?) represent only the tip of the iceberg. The almost complete lack of reaction seen in Berlin after Edward Snowden’s disclosure of the blanket electronic espionage routinely conducted against German leaders by the NSA means that in reality, Germany has acknowledged its loss of sovereignty over its own country and thus has nothing to lose.

So, after taking all these facts into account and rereading the article in the Telegraph, are you still so sure that the United States is truly the guardian of Europe’s sovereignty? Is it not more likely that by using the alleged “Russian threat” to control and harass the political establishment and civil society in Europe, Washington is making headway toward a simple and primitive goal – that of merely keeping its sheep within the fold?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Alleged Clandestine Funding of “Leftist” Political Parties in Europe

Freeing Julian Assange: The Last Chapter

February 5th, 2016 by John Pilger

One of the epic miscarriages of justice of our time is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention — — the international tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations — has ruled that Julian Assange has been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden.

After five years of fighting to clear his name — having been smeared relentlessly yet charged with no crime — Assange is closer to justice and vindication, and perhaps freedom, than at any time since he was arrested and held in London under a European Extradition Warrant, itself now discredited by Parliament.

The UN Working Group bases its judgements on the European Convention on Human Rights and three other treaties that are binding on all its signatories. Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgement and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted him by the Ecuadorean government in its London embassy.

In previous, celebrated cases ruled upon by the Working Group — Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detainedWashington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran, both Britain and Sweden have given support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution and confinement endures in the heart of London.

The Assange case has never been primarily about allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden — where the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the case, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”, and one of the women involved accused the police of fabricating evidence and “railroading” her, protesting she “did not want to accuse JA of anything” — and a second prosecutor mysteriously re-opened the case after political intervention, then stalled it.

The Assange case is rooted across the Atlantic in Pentagon-dominated Washington, obsessed with pursuing and prosecuting whistleblowers, especially Assange for having exposed, in WikiLeaks, US capital crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of civilians and a contempt for sovereignty and international law. None of this truth-telling is illegal under the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.

Obama, the betrayer, has since prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the US presidents combined. The courageous Chelsea Manning is serving 35 years in prison, having been tortured during her long pre-trial detention.

The prospect of a similar fate has hung over Assange like a Damocles sword. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. Vice-President Joe Bidon has called him a “cyber terrorist”. In Alexandra, Virginia, a secret grand jury has attempted to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted in a court. Even though he is not an American, he is currently being fitted up with an espionage law dredged up from a century ago when it was used to silence conscientious objectors during the First World War; the Espionage Act has provisions of both life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange’s ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. A federal court has blocked the release of all information about what is known as the “national security” investigation of WikiLeaks.

The supporting act in this charade has been played by the second Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny had refused to comply with a routine European procedure that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case that James Catlin, one of Assange’s barristers, called “a laughing stock … it’s as if they make it up as they go along”. Indeed, even before Assange had left Sweden for London in 2010, Marianne Ny made no attempt to question him. In the years since, she has never properly explained, even to her own judicial authorities, why she has not completed the case she so enthusiastically re-ignited — just as the she has never explained why she has refused to give Assange a guarantee that he will not be extradited on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In 2010, the Independent in London revealed that the two governments had discussed Assange’s onward extradition.

Then there is tiny, brave Ecuador. One of the reasons Ecuador granted Julian Assange political asylum was that his own government, in Australia, had offered him none of the help to which he had a legal right and so abandoned him. Australia’s collusion with the United States against its own citizen is evident in leaked documents; no more faithful vassals has America than the obeisant politicians of the Antipodes.

Four years ago, in Sydney, I spent several hours with the Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia and, as I write, is attending an international conference on Syria hosted the Cameron government — about 15 minutes’ cab ride from the room that Julian Assange has occupied for three and a half years in the small Ecuadorean embassy just along from Harrod’s. The Syria connection is relevant if unreported; it was WikiLeaks that revealed that the United States had long planned to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Today, as he meets and greets, Prime Minister Turnbull has an opportunity to contribute a modicum of purpose and truth to the conference by speaking up for his unjustly imprisoned compatriot, for whom he showed such concern when we met. All he need do is quote the judgement of the UN Working Party on Arbitrary Detention. Will he reclaim this shred of Australia’s reputation in the decent world?

What is certain is that the decent world owes much to Julian Assange. He told us how indecent power behaves in secret, how it lies and manipulates and engages in great acts of violence, sustaining wars that kill and maim and turn millions into the refugees now in the news. Telling us this truth alone earns Assange his freedom, whereas justice is his right.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Freeing Julian Assange: The Last Chapter

Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again

February 5th, 2016 by Jack A. Smith

Nearly five years after the U.S., Britain and France launched a bombing campaign against the Libyan government to bring about regime change, these same countries are contemplating a resumption of the war they thought was won when rebel forces they supported grotesquely tortured to death the country’s leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi.

The result today in Libya is utter disarray. But at the time, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — a leading advocate of the bombing who justifies the deed to this day — was ecstatic when told the news of Qaddafi’s death while she was appearing on a TV talk show. Laughingly she shouted to the cameras, “We came, we saw, he died!”

No one is laughing in Washington now. President Obama came, saw and created the very opposite of what he sought, a hardly unusual outcome for the Obama and Bush Administrations.in the Middle East. Instead of a pliable dependent government willing to do the bidding of Washington and its NATO foreign legion, there has been an explosion of civil war and Sunni jihadism.

The U.S. and UN have been striving for months to unite the two factions in Libya that claim to be the country’s government. On Feb. 1 the faction that that has been recognized by the U.S. and many nations rejected unity with its opposite number. The bedlam in Libya caused by the 2011 overthrow has allowed the Islamic State (IS) to grow strong and occupy several territories.

Agence France-Presse reported Jan. 29: “Barack Obama has asked key advisors to draw up options for ratcheting up the fight against the Islamic State group, including opening a new front in Libya…. Potential options are said to range from intensified air strikes to participation in a UN-backed ground force that would help take on Libya’s estimated 3,000 Islamic State fighters…. The Defense Department announced it stands ready to perform the full spectrum of military operations a required.”

The U.S. and France are preparing for “decisive military action” in Libya against the IS, according, to a statement Jan. 22 by Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said a final decision would be made in a matter or weeks, and that President Obama “has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.”

The New York Times reported Jan. 23: “United States and British Special Operations teams have for months been conducting clandestine reconnaissance missions in Libya to identify militant leaders and map out their networks. Separate teams of American Special Operations forces have over the past year been trying to court allies from among a patchwork of Libyan militias that remain unreliable, unaccountable, poorly organized and divided by region and tribe.

In recent weeks, military commanders have intensified their warnings about the threat from the Islamic State in Libya, where Western officials believe the group now has about 3,000 fighters. Recruits are pouring into Libya weekly, as the journey to Iraq and Syria has become more difficult with Turkey tightening its border with Syria, intelligence officials said.

On Jan. 27, the Times declared in an editorial: “This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops. That is deeply troubling. A new military intervention in Libya would represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to other countries on the continent.”

Stratfor analyst Scott Steward predicted a month before the first U.S./NATO attack in March 2011 that pandemonium would ensue. Now, on Jan. 27, he wrote:

As the United States and its European and regional allies prepare to intervene in Libya, they should be able to reduce the jihadist’s ability to openly control territory. However, they will face the same challenge they did in 2011 — building a stable political system from the shattered remains of what was once a country. Now, Libya is a patchwork of territories controlled by a variety of ethnic, tribal and regional warlords. The last five years of fighting has led to significant hatred and blood feuds between these competing factions, which will only compound the challenges ahead.

On Jan. 28, Aljazeera reported: “Taking advantage of the chaos and large swaths of ungoverned territory caused by Libya’s civil war, Islamic State has established three separate wilayat (provinces) there since late 2014 — Tarablus along the west coast, Fezzan in the southwest, and Barqah in the east, with the key coastal city of Sirte serving as its Libyan capital. Like its parent group in Syria and Iraq, IS in Libya has uploaded video proof of its atrocities to the Internet, including mass decapitations of Egyptian, Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians.”

Why should we not be surprised about additional U.S. military escalations in the Middle East and the probability of many more to come? The Bush Administration’s 2001 war in Afghanistan is still going on and will not end with a U.S. military victory. Washington’s 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq is still going on in its second excruciating incarnation. President Obama’s call for regime change in Syria and support for the rebels has transformed this country into a slaughterhouse, resulting in up to 250,000 deaths and millions of refugees. Last year’s U.S. backed and equipped Saudi Arabian invasion of Yemen is still going on with no end approaching. And President Obama still approves a weekly kill list of human targets for his drone wars.

Washington has been politically and militarily involved with the Middle East for over 70 years. It has overthrown governments and invaded countries to bolster its regional authority. During that time it has supported a plethora of dictators, working with them over the years to virtually destroy the entire political left and liberalism throughout the region.

In the absence of a strong rational internal political opposition to bring about progressive political change and to protect their countries from the influence and depredations of Western imperialism, the religio-fascist IS and other Sunni fundamentalist fanatics represent the only — but warped and backward — opposition to U.S. dominion. It is certainly not the answer to the grave problems afflicting the people and countries throughout the region.

The U.S. political system, like the Bourbon dynasty in France, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing after all these decades of deep penetration in the Middle East, supporting reactionary regimes, causing the deaths of well over a million people and the destruction of entire societies.

Judging by the present political situation in the U.S., Washington in the foreseeable future will continue supporting the dictatorships and fighting endless wars to secure its regional “leadership,” Obama’s code word for American domination. Now it looks like U.S. “leadership” is being disrespected in Libya — so off we go, again. Only a massive, politically enlightened peace movement in the U.S. can stop this continual cycle of aggression and mayhem.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again

Why the ‘Sultan of Chaos’ is Freaking Out. “Saudi Prince Turki, Former Mentor of bin Laden on PR Offensive”

February 5th, 2016 by Pepe Escobar

Picture sleepless nights at ‘Sultan’ Erdogan’s palace in Ankara. Imagine him livid when he learns the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), backed by Russian air power, started a preemptive Battle of Aleppo – through the Bayirbucak region – cutting off Ankara’s top weaponizing corridor and Jihadi highway.

Who controls this corridor will control the final outcome of the war in Syria.

Meanwhile, in Geneva, the remote-controlled Syrian opposition, a.k.a. High Negotiations Committee, graphically demonstrated they never wanted to meet with the Damascus delegation in the first place – “proximity” talks or otherwise, even after Washington and Moscow roughly agreed on a two-year transition plan leading to a theoretically secular, nonsectarian Syria.

Residents inspect damage after airstrikes by pro-Syrian government forces in Anadan city, about 10 kilometers away from the towns of Nubul and Zahraa, Northern Aleppo countryside, Syria February 3, 2016. © Abdalrhman Ismail

Residents inspect damage after airstrikes by pro-Syrian government forces in Anadan city, about 10 kilometers away from the towns of Nubul and Zahraa, Northern Aleppo countryside, Syria February 3, 2016. © Abdalrhman Ismail / Reuters

The Saudi front wanted no less than Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam and all Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, collaborators at the table in Geneva. So the Geneva charade, quicker than one can say “Road to Aleppo!” was exposed for what it is.

And forget about NATO

Notorious Saudi intel mastermind Prince Turki, a former mentor of one Osama bin Laden, has been to Paris on a PR offensive; all he could muster was an avalanche of non-denial denials – and blaming the whole Syria tragedy on Bashar al-Assad.

The bulk of the Syrian ‘opposition’ used to be armchair warriors co-opted by the CIA for years, as well as CIA Muslim Brotherhood patsies/vassals. Many of these characters preferred the joys of Paris to a hard slog on Syrian ground. Now the ‘opposition’ is basically warlords answering to the House of Saud even for bottles of water – regardless of the suit-and-tie former Ba’ath Party ministers handpicked to be the face of the opposition for the gullible Western corporate media.

Meanwhile, the ‘4+1’ – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – is now winning decisive facts on the ground. The break down; there won’t be regime change in Damascus. Yet no one broke the news to the Turks and Saudis.

‘Sultan’ Erdogan is wallowing in a sea of desperation. He continues to divert the gravely serious issues at stake to his own war against the PYD – the umbrella organization of the Syrian Kurds – and the YPG (People’s Protection Units, their military wing). Erdogan and Prime Minister Davutoglu wanted the PYD not only banned from Geneva but they want it smashed on the ground, as they see the PYD/YPG as “terrorists” allied to the PKK.

U.N. mediator for Syria Staffan de Mistura gestures during a news conference on the Syrian peace talks outside President Wilson hotel in Geneva, Switzerland February 3, 2016. © Denis Balibouse

U.N. mediator for Syria Staffan de Mistura gestures during a news conference on the Syrian peace talks outside President Wilson hotel
in Geneva, Switzerland February 3, 2016. © Denis Balibouse / Reuters

Yet what is ‘Sultan’ Erdogan going to do? Defy the recently arrived 4G++ Sukhoi Su-35S fighters – which are scaring the hell out of every NATO Dr. Strangelove? The Turkish Air Force putting its bases on “orange alert” may scare the odd vagrant dog at best. The same applies to NATO Secretary-General, figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, pleading to Russia “to act responsibly and fully respect NATO airspace.”

Moscow is going after the Turkmen with a vengeance and at the same time providing air support to the PYD west of the Euphrates. That hits the ‘Sultan’ in his heart of hearts; after all Erdogan has threatened multiple times that a PYD/YPG advance west of the Euphrates is the ultimate red line.

An already scared NATO won’t support the folly of an Erdogan war against Russia – as much as US and UK neocons may crave it; as NATO decisions must be unanimous, the last thing EU powers Germany and France want is yet another Southwest Asia war. NATO may deploy the odd Patriot missiles in southern Anatolia and the odd AWACs to support the Turkish Air Force. But that’s it.

Pick your favorite regime change

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, meanwhile, continues to profit from its own Jihadi highway across a 98 kilometer stretch of Turkish/Syrian border, especially in Jarablus and Al Rai across from Gaziantep and Kilis in Turkey.

Taking a cue from Israel, Ankara is building a wall – 3.6 meters high, 2.5 meters wide – covering the stretch between Elbeyli and Kilis, essentially for propaganda purposes. Because the Jihadi Highway, for all practical purposes, remains open – even as Turkish Armed Forces may apprehend the odd trespasser (always released). We’re talking about a monster smuggler/soldier scam; as much as $300 change hands for each night crossing and a noncommissioned Turkish officer may earn as much as $2,500 to look the other way for a few minutes.

The real question is why Gaziantep is not under a curfew imposed from Ankara, with thousands of Turkish Special Forces actually fighting a “war on terra” on the spot. That’s because Ankara and provincial authorities couldn’t give a damn; the real priority is Erdogan’s war on the Kurds.

This brings us to the only leverage the ‘Sultan’ may enjoy at the moment. From Brussels to Berlin, sound minds are terrified that the EU is now actually hostage to Erdogan’s Kurd “priority”, while Ankara is doing next to nothing to fight massive migrant smuggling.

When Davutoglu went to Berlin recently not only did he make no promises; he re-stressed Erdogan’s vow to “annihilate” the Syrian Kurds.

And that explains German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s own desperation. How could the alleged most powerful politician in Europe falls for such a crude extortion racket? The ‘Sultan’ wants a lot of cash, a lot of concessions, and even a further shot at entering the EU. Otherwise, he won’t turn off the tap on the grim refugee flood.

No wonder the regime change rumor mill is frantic. In Ankara? No; in Berlin.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he’s been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of “Globalistan” (2007), “Red Zone Blues” (2007), “Obama does Globalistan” (2009) and “Empire of Chaos” (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is “2030”, also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why the ‘Sultan of Chaos’ is Freaking Out. “Saudi Prince Turki, Former Mentor of bin Laden on PR Offensive”

Lo que Obama dijo realmente acerca de Cuba, las relaciones exteriores y los EE.UU.

February 5th, 2016 by Arnold August

En el discurso anual sobre el Estado de la Unión, pronunciado el 13 de enero de 2015, el  presidente Obama reiteró su política sobre las relaciones Cuba-EE.UU.. Según Obama:

“Cincuenta años de aislamiento a Cuba no habían servido para promover la democracia, lo que nos estancó en Latinoamérica. Por eso recuperamos las relaciones diplomáticas, (Aplauso), abrimos las puertas a viajes y comercio, y nos posicionamos con el fin de mejorar las vidas del pueblo cubano”.  (Aplauso)

Eso es, básicamente lo mismo que Obama declaró hace unos años sobre la política hacia Cuba y también, lo que apareció en una serie de editoriales en el periódico The New York Times. Ambos planteamientos ayudaron a allanar el camino para la declaración conjunta de los presidentes Barack Obama y Raúl Castro del 17 de diciembre de 2014, para restaurar las relaciones diplomáticas, lo que representó una victoria para Cuba. No ha habido cambios en la posición de los EE.UU.  Como el presidente Obama ha expresado en ocasiones anteriores, la vieja política de aislar a Cuba “no funcionó”. Fracasó en su intento de llevar la “democracia” a ese país, un eufemismo para referirse al derrocamiento del orden constitucional y de la Revolución cubana.

Como señalamos anteriormente, Obama reiteró que la vieja política de EE.UU. hacia Cuba también “nos estancó en Latinoamérica”. En otras palabras, afectó no solo la credibilidad de EE.UU. en América Latina, sino además su capacidad para maniobrar allí. La meta estratégica del país norteño en América Latina tiene a largo plazo el mismo objetivo de “llevar la democracia” a aquellos países que se han desviado radicalmente de la ruta pro EE.UU. y pro capitalista y que tienen el objetivo de abrir un nuevo camino revolucionario basado en el respeto a la soberanía nacional y el anticapitalismo. Venezuela representa el blanco más significativo para los Estados Unidos.

Obama manifestó en su discurso, que su nueva política hacia Cuba “abrió la puerta para los viajes y el comercio”. Aun cuando esto es cierto, no es mucho más que un esfuerzo unidireccional que solo favorece a EE.UU. y contradice el abrir puertas equitativamente, sobre bases recíprocas, para que los cubanos puedan realizar negocios con los EE.UU. y a nivel internacional.

¿Qué quiso decir Obama cuando la Casa Blanca y su administración declaró que: “nos posicionamos con el fin de mejorar las vidas del pueblo cubano”? Un objetivo importante de la política diseñada para mejorar “las vidas del pueblo cubano” está dirigido a las 500.000 personas trabajando por cuenta propia en un sector en expansión de la economía cubana. El objetivo táctico inmediato de la administración de Obama es fortalecer ese sector. En su esfuerzo de impulsar esta política, los funcionarios de su administración apenas ocultan su objetivo a largo plazo, que es desarrollar este sector para que abra una brecha potencial en la sociedad cubana.

Según el plan de los EE.UU., ellos serían, por lo menos, indiferentes y apolíticos, si no hostiles, al gobierno cubano y al sistema político de Cuba.  Esta tendencia sería del agrado de esas 500.000 cuentapropistas, tal como lo desea EE.UU y considerarían a los EE.UU. y a sus “valores” (capitalismo) como su salvador. En dicha situación, la marca de “hecho en los EE.UU.”, sería como un cáncer carcomiendo el proyecto socialista cubano e incluso, su soberanía.

Además, si Obama estuviera realmente interesado en “mejorar las vidas del pueblo cubano”, podría usar los poderes ejecutivos a su disposición para eliminar aspectos importantes del bloqueo sin que el Congreso lo pueda impedir.

Ahora bien, ¿qué dijo realmente Obama sobre el bloqueo?

“¿Quieren consolidar nuestro liderazgo y credibilidad en este hemisferio? Reconozcan que la Guerra Fría ha terminado. Levanten el embargo”. (Aplauso)

Está claro que Obama está a favor de levantar el bloqueo genocida no por razones morales sino para lograr el objetivo de mejorar la imagen de los EE.UU. en América Latina.

Sin embargo, existe otro aspecto. Si él estuviera tan opuesto al bloqueo, ¿por qué desviar el enfoque hacia la mayoría republicana en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos? Como se mencionó anteriormente, hay mucho más que él puede realizar por su cuenta haciendo uso de sus prerrogativas ejecutivas. Culpar al Congreso de bloquear al poder ejecutivo es de cierta manera, una artimaña. La carencia de su oposición real al bloqueo se tipifica cuando en el 2014, bajo la tutela de Obama, un banco alemán recibió una multa de 1.000 millones de dólares por realizar transacciones con Cuba. ¿Por qué el pueblo cubano debe esperar por el congreso estadounidense cuando el bloqueo ha sido, y sigue siendo, el obstáculo principal para el desarrollo sostenible de Cuba?

Refiriéndose a Cuba, pero indirectamente, Obama se jactó ostentosamente:

“Por eso voy a continuar trabajando para cerrar la prisión de Guantánamo. (Aplauso) Es costosa, es innecesaria y solo sirve como panfleto de reclutamiento para nuestros enemigos”. (Aplauso)

Él no desea “cerrar” la prisión por ser una cámara de tortura, una mancha para la humanidad, sino porque “es costosa e innecesaria…”.

Existen varios aspectos relacionados con Guantánamo.

Primero, él ha prometido cerrar la prisión desde que fue electo presidente. ¿Por qué no lo hizo antes o lo hace ahora? No necesita la aprobación del Congreso. Después de todo, el ex-presidente Bush inauguró esta infame prisión por su cuenta, sin la aprobación del Congreso. Culpar al congreso de los EE.UU. es nuevamente parte de su política oportunista.

Segundo, ¿por qué no devolver Guantánamo al pueblo de Cuba? No se ha dicho ni una palabra sobre eso, a pesar de que la zona donde se encuentra la base naval estadounidense es parte de Cuba. Antes de jugar la carta Guantánamo, Obama dijo lo siguiente:

“Eso es fortaleza estadounidense. Eso es liderazgo estadounidense. Y ese tipo de liderazgo depende del poder de nuestro ejemplo”.

El ejemplo ofrecido inmediatamente después de esas frases, es cerrar la prisión en Guantánamo. Sin embargo, el ejemplo no es muy convincente dado que aún sigue en operaciones, a pesar del derecho legal de Obama de cerrarla por su cuenta.

Pese a las declaraciones acerca de Cuba, Obama nunca reconoció el problema que enfrenta su administración y es que el gobierno cubano está muy consciente que los EE.UU. ha cambiado solamente sus tácticas, mientras mantiene el objetivo estratégico a largo plazo de socavar la Revolución cubana.  En este contexto, los cubanos se oponen valerosamente a la interferencia estadounidense en los asuntos cubanos. El presidente Raúl Castro y el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba se lo han advertido públicamente. Los cubanos están empeñados en avanzar lo más posible en el contexto del cambio de táctica de los EE.UU. para el bien del pueblo cubano y del pueblo estadounidense.  Sin embargo, Cuba advirtió a los EE.UU, que nunca vendería sus principios y defendería resueltamente su soberanía y dignidad.

Eso es lo que Obama dijo y lo que no dijo sobre Cuba. Pero lo que dijo sobre otros temas de las relaciones exteriores afecta no solo a Cuba y a las relaciones Cuba-EE.UU., sino también al resto del mundo. Existen demasiados ejemplos para tratarlos aquí y superan la finalidad de este artículo. Por lo tanto, tomemos dos ejemplos descriptivos.

Primero, el apuntó directamente contra China y Rusia, que forman parte importante del cimiento de un nuevo mundo multipolar, en alianza creciente con América Latina y el Caribe.

“…y cuando se trata de asuntos internacionales importantes, la gente en el mundo no busca ayuda en Pekín o Moscú —nos llaman a nosotros”. (Aplauso)

Parte de este comentario denota la competencia feroz de EE.UU. por la hegemonía mundial, poniendo la vista en China y en Rusia. Durante su discurso y muy animado por el aplauso tradicional, criticó a Rusia (Crimea) e hizo lo mismo con China. Explicó como China fue, supuestamente, manipulada y dejada a un lado por el acuerdo Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) [Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica].

El TPP es un acuerdo comercial entre doce países de la Cuenca del Pacífico que involucra a una amplia gama de temas de política económica, alcanzado el 5 de octubre de 2015, después de siete años de negociaciones. Sus miembros incluyen, entre otros, a Chile, México y Perú. Está siendo introducida como con un ariete en el Congreso de los EE.UU, sin que sus representantes tengan un conocimiento cabal de qué se trata. Obama declaró:

“Con TPP, China no determina las reglas en esa región, sino nosotros. ¿Quieren demostrar nuestra fuerza en este siglo? Hagan que se apruebe este acuerdo. Dadnos las herramientas para hacerlo cumplir”. Es hacer lo correcto. (Aplauso)

Cuba depende de sí misma para su soberanía e independencia. Aun cuando estuvo aliada con la antigua Unión Soviética, mantuvo la distancia y nunca se convirtió en un satélite de la antigua URSS. Sin embargo, un mundo multipolar en crecimiento la favorece mucho. En esta situación, la Isla puede desarrollar más eficazmente las relaciones económicas y políticas, como lo hace actualmente con China y Rusia, que ya no están dentro de la esfera de influencia de EE.UU. y de las potencias occidentales.

El afán de los EE.UU. por dominar al mundo, incluyendo a países como China y Rusia, no puede ser subestimado. Todo logro en esta dirección afectará también a Cuba. El concepto y la política del “imperialismo estadounidense” no solo es todavía aplicable, sino que es más necesario que nunca tener conciencia de su existencia, cuando se disfraza para hacer avanzar las mismas políticas. Su cualidad camaleónica es más peligrosa ahora en la fase de Obama. La dominación mundial no ha dejado de ser el objetivo del imperialismo estadounidense, cuya verdadera naturaleza es la supremacía global. América Latina y el Caribe, incluyendo a Cuba, son blancos para lograr la dominación mundial.

Segundo, acerca de la política estadounidense de relaciones exteriores, además del objetivo de bloquear la creciente tendencia de un mundo multipolar, Obama se refirió a lo siguiente, créanlo o no:

“Estados Unidos de América es la nación más poderosa de la Tierra. Punto. (Aplauso) Punto. No hay comparación. No hay comparación. (Aplauso). No hay comparación. Gastamos más en nuestras fuerzas militares que las siguientes ocho naciones juntas”.

¿Por qué hacer a los lectores esta pregunta retórica: “créanlo o no”? Cuando este comentario de Obama se envió en un tweet mientras pronunciaba su discurso, varios seguidores desde EE.UU., respondieron con tweets preguntando en forma incrédula: “Un momento, ¿él dijo eso realmente?”. Sí lo dijo. Y no solo eso, lo dijo con más orgullo aun en la siguiente frase:

“Nuestras tropas son las mejores fuerzas de combate de la historia del mundo”. (Aplauso)

La respuesta a esto es que nunca habrá justicia para los millones de personas muertas a manos del ejército de los EE.UU desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial, desde Corea a Vietnam, Afganistán, Irak y otros países con sus aliados como Israel y Arabia Saudí. De hecho, Obama dijo lo siguiente acerca de Vietnam:

“Tampoco podemos intentar hacernos cargo y reconstruir cada país que entre en crisis aun cuando sea con la mejor de las intenciones. (Aplauso) Eso no es ser un líder; es una manera segura de acabar en un atolladero, derramando sangre y dinero estadounidense que en definitiva nos debilitan. Es la lección de Vietnam, de Irak, y ya deberíamos haberla aprendido”. (Aplauso)

Obama, como siempre ha dicho en el caso de Vietnam, lamenta “el derrame de sangre y dinero estadounidense”. Pero nuevamente, no mencionó a más de 1 millón de vietnamitas muertos a manos de las fuerzas armadas de los Estados Unidos durante su agresión y guerra contra ese país. Esta ha sido su posición desde sus inicios de su carrera política en lo relacionado a esa guerra y así lo escribió en un libro suyo, publicado en el 2006 con anterioridad a su primer mandato del 2008. No es nada nuevo. El poderío militar con una fuerte dosis de chovinismo estadounidense se vincula directamente con su oposición a un mundo multipolar en crecimiento.

Permítanos cambiar el enfoque hacia la política interna de Obama. Una vez más, existen muchos temas a considerar. Sin embargo nos concentraremos en solo dos.

Primero, algunas personas pueden recordar que cuando surgió el movimiento de afroamericanos y sus seguidores contra los ataques racistas y asesinatos por parte del estado/policía, los manifestantes de base (grass-roots) izaron las pancartas con la consigna  “Black Lives Matter” [Las vidas de afroamericanos importan.]  Ahora bien, ¿cuáles fueron las respuestas de los políticos y grupos racistas de derecha, y de muchos en la policía?  Para contrarrestar el movimiento “Black Lives Matter” crearon consignas como “White Lives Matter” o incluso “Blue Lives Matter” [Las vidas de los blancos importan, Las vidas de los “azules” importan] (en referencia a los uniformes azules de la policía) o “All Lives Matter” [Todas las vidas importan.] A continuación es lo que Obama dijo en su alocución:

“Voces que nos ayudan a vernos no primero y ante todo como negros o blancos, asiáticos o latinos, homosexuales o heterosexuales, inmigrantes o nacidos aquí; no como demócratas o republicanos, sino primero como estadounidenses, unidos por un credo común”.

¿No es esto un ataque indirecto (o incluso directo) contra “Black Lives Matter”? No significa esta declaración, aparentemente inocente y moral, su apoyo una vez más, a la alternativa del orden político. ¿No es este apoyo velado al retroceso reaccionario una negación de la opresión violenta del estado contra ciudadanos afroamericanos, basado en el legado del origen de los EE.UU. como una sociedad esclavista? Este aspecto del discurso del Estado de la Unión es muy similar a lo que él pregonaba y exponía en sus libros publicados antes de ser presidente, en relación a que los EE.UU. es una “sociedad post-racista”.

Esta declaración traicionera de ser “estadounidenses primero” es más evidente aun cuando se tiene en cuenta lo siguiente. Durante el transcurso del discurso de Obama, no se mencionó una palabra sobre las muertes de afroamericanos a manos de la policía en el 2015 y de su frecuente encarcelamiento masivo. Tal como en el 2013 y el 2014, la sociedad norteamericana está desgarrándose por el racismo latente todavía muy presente y creciendo en ese país. Sin embargo, no dijo siquiera una palabra al respecto, de las 6.000 pronunciadas en el discurso del Estado de la Unión. Ello sería normal en esa presentación.

Si el discurso expuso la violación extrema de los derechos humanos en los EE.UU, ¿cómo puede Obama, tener la cara dura de sermonear a Cuba y a otros países sobre los derechos humanos y la democracia? Los cubanos han manifestado fuertemente a los EE.U lo siguiente: ¿Ustedes quieren hablar de derechos humanos en Cuba? Muy bien, pero debemos hablar también de derechos humanos en los EE.UU.

El Segundo tema interno, además del racismo, es la democracia, sobre la que Obama dijo:

“Pero la democracia sí necesita unos lazos básicos de confianza entre sus ciudadanos… Ante todo, [después de dar algunos ejemplos] la democracia deja de funcionar cuando las personas sienten que sus opiniones no son importantes…”

¿Importó (e importa) la “voz” de la gente cuando se trata del movimiento “Occupy” (Ocupa), reprimido por la policía y la FBI durante la administración del presidente Obama? Se escuchó la voz de los afroamericanos y sus aliados en relación a la muerte, a manos de la policía y autoridades, de ciudadanos afroamericanos? Recordemos que George Zimmerman, el asesino de Trayvon Martin, fue exonerado por el Departamento de Justicia durante la presidencia de Obama, en febrero de 2015. Al policía asesino del joven Michael Brown en Ferguson se le dio el visto bueno para evitar el juicio y el encarcelamiento por la Administración de Obama cuando en el informe de su Departamento de Justicia del 4 de marzo de 2015 también lo exoneró del delito de asesinato. En su lugar, [el gobierno de Obama] optó por la “confianza” de parte de los afroamericanos, por un lado y el aparato de policía estatal/justicia, por el otro lado. Esta política se repite nuevamente en la cita de “lazos básicos de confianza” mencionada en el discurso del Estado de la Unión. Mientras que el público es bombardeado simultáneamente por la guerra de palabras de los medios de prensa y del estado, la impunidad del estado/policía entró en una espiral sin control. Esta situación no constituye una base firme para dar lecciones a países como Cuba sobre la democracia y los derechos humanos.

Existen muchos problemas internos que abordar. Sin embargo, cerremos este tema. El Presidente Obama recordó al Dr. Martin Luther King cuando declaró:

“Voces que el Dr. King creyó que tendrían la última palabra”.

Solo la mera mención del nombre de esta importante figura de la política y la moral de los EE.UU, salida de los labios de Obama, nos hace hervir la sangre. Dr. Martin Luther King, a diferencia de Obama, protestó muy vehementemente contra la guerra de los Estados Unidos contra Vietnam. Si el Dr. King estuviera vivo hoy, con seguridad se opondría a la cantidad record de guerras que el ganador del Premio Nobel de la Paz está librando en el Medio Oriente. Dr.King fue un luchador valiente contra el racismo y la pobreza. Llevó a cabo sus misiones, no para usarlas como trampolín para una carrera política lucrativa, sino por el contrario, para estar hombro con hombro con el pueblo a expensas de su propia vida. King es una leyenda mucho más cercana al legado de la Revolución cubana que al del presidente Obama.

Arnold August

 Publicado en español en CubaPeriodistas, 1 de febrero de 2016

[Nota del traductor: Arnold August, el autor de este artículo, no lo escribió basado en el discurso, preparado de antemano, del Estado de la Unión para el Congreso de los EE.UU. y publicado por la Casa Blanca. Por el contrario, él utilizó las citas del discurso tal como fue pronunciado, trascripto y publicado por la Casa Blanca. Este fue el que la gente vio y escuchó en la transmisión televisiva. Esta versión oficial incluye algunas expresiones espontáneas e improvisadas del presidente Obama, así como también referencias a los aplausos. Desafortunadamente, esta versión en español no se encontraba en la página Web de la Casa Blanca. En español, existe sólo la versión preparada de antemano. Por lo tanto, el traductor utilizó la versión oficial en español preparada de antemano de la Casa Blanca, la cual sirvió de base para la traducción de su artículo. En la traducción del artículo se incluyen las expresiones espontáneas del presidente Obama, así como también los aplausos. Algunas frases breves en la versión en español de la Casa Blanca no fueron correctamente traducidas del inglés. Dichas frases se corrigieron en la traducción al español del artículo.] 

Discurso preparado de antemano en español y publicado por la Casa Blanca:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/comentarios-del-presidente-barack-obama-discurso-sobre-el-estado-de-la

El artículo original en inglés en Global Research:

Obama discours

What Obama Really Said About Cuba, Foreign Affairs and the US, 21 de Enero de 2016

http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-obama-really-said-about-cuba-foreign-affairs-and-the-us/5502649

Tomado de CubaPeriodistas:

http://www.cubaperiodistas.cu/index.php/2016/02/lo-que-obama-dijo-realmente-acerca-de-cuba/

Arnold August, Periodista y conferencista canadiense, el autor de los libros Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections y más recientemente, Cuba y sus vecinos: Democracia en movimiento. En Twitter: @Arnold_August Su sitio web: www.lademocracia.com

 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Lo que Obama dijo realmente acerca de Cuba, las relaciones exteriores y los EE.UU.

Libya’s Instability Threatens Regional Security. Extended ISIS Terrorism in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa?

February 4th, 2016 by South Front

Though Syria and Iraq are the main theaters of global standoff and terrorist activity in recent years, there is another country that also draws the attention of the world powers: Libya. Since the fall of Muammar Gadhafi in 2011, the war-torn country has been in a constant crisis fueled by the West’s inability to implement any kind of a peace settlement involving a wide range of competing entities operating in the country. The so-called “national unity government” backed by the UN has almost no influence in the country. The crucial oil infrastructure and the coastal zone are controlled by fragmented factions. Indeed, it’s obvious that US and European diplomats won’t be able to control the Libyan conflict over the long term. A conflict they created themselves. A diplomatic solution could be found through UN procedures and under the supervision of the international community through neutral states such India, Malaysia, Indonesia or even Latin America states. Unfortunately, this type of “neutral approach” is never implemented by the UN.

If the US and the EU continue to participate in the conflict, the situation will likely deteriorate. The Libyan scenario is even worse than the situation in Syria and Iraq because the structure of governance is totally destroyed. After the start of the Russian military operation in Syria which also pushed other world powers to increase military activity in the region, ISIS is rapidly losing ground in Syria and Iraq. The group is now looking for a new home. Some 5,000 militants loyal to ISIS already operate in Libya and this number is expected to grow.

Thus Libya will likely become a foothold for the terrorist groups after a retreat from the Syria-Iraq battlespace. Here they will be able to set up a network of training camps and start a new full-scale recruiting campaign. Libya’s advantageous geographical location will allow terrorist entities entrenched there to conduct operations in any chosen direction: Middle East, Europe or Northern and Central Africa. Economic resources also attract the attention of ISIS. Libya is rich in oil fields and its geographical location allows terrorist groups to control illegal traffic from the rest of Africa to Europe and Middle East.

There are a number of historical examples of North African states – Algeria, Tunisia, Libya – acting as a base for radical organizations operating in regions such as the Middle East and Europe. These examples could easily be repeated.

There is a serious threat that a new terror state will rise in Libya due to the terrorist expansion to the region. This expansion will intensify as terrorists lose territorial control in Syria and Iraq. Human trafficking, the narcotics trade and oil smuggling will allow for the setting of an expansive economic ground for a newly entrenched terrorist regime.

From this point, one can identify three possible directions of further destabilization:

The first is expansion to the South toward Niger, Nigeria and Chad. These countries already have a serious threat of militancy and could be destabilized into chaos by a new powerful terrorist entity in Libya.

The second direction is Algeria and Tunisia. The internal situation there is dangerous because of low standards of living, insufficient education and distrust of the authorities. Thus, Algeria is vulnerable to attempts at destabilization.

The third possible direction of expansion is Mali and Mauritania in the South-west and Sudan in the South-East. The impoverished citizenry of these countries is a great recruiting pool for terrorist groups with newly acquired valuable resources under their control. Furthermore, radical Islamism is already quite popular in this area.

The failed Western attempts to implement a peace settlement in Libya are clearly undermining regional security, turning the country into a foothold for terrorist operations in North Africa, Europe and Middle East, and facilitating human trafficking and uncontrolled arms sales including air defense weapons that could threaten civil air traffic. The growing destabilization in Libya will also increase illegal migration flow to Europe. Moreover, the Mediterranean migration route opens a highway for terrorists aiming to set up sleeper terrorist cells or conduct terrorist actions across the whole of Europe. A possible second NATO-led intervention in the country, an idea which is circulating in the US-funded think tanks, will only complicate the situation. It will provoke a new wave of rebellion among the Libyan people. The people of Libya know full well who plunged their country into war.

In this case, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence believes there is only one way to stabilize the situation and avoid a NATO-led military intervention which will further undermine already weak North African security and fuel the ongoing war and refugee crisis. Resolution of the conflict requires setting up a temporary international administration under the auspices of an organization established specifically for this task and operating under mandate of the UN, in combination with a true international peacekeeping force on Libyan territory.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Libya’s Instability Threatens Regional Security. Extended ISIS Terrorism in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa?

Syria: ISIS and Terrorist Organizations Decimated by Syrian Army and Russian Air Force

February 4th, 2016 by South Front

On Feb.3, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah units broken a siege imposed by terrorist organizations in the towns of Nubbul and al-Zahraa. The siege is said to have lasted for 40 months. The success of the operation was grounded on the efficient cooperation between the Russian forces and the Syrian ground forces.

Following the heavy clashes, the Syrian troops also seized the Ma’arasta-Masqan road in Northern Aleppo.

The loyalist forces entered the village of Tayyibah (Teibah). The heavy between the SAA and ISIS are going there. However, there are reports that the Syrian troops are pushing ISIS from the village.

Meanwhile, a senior commander of the Fath al-Halab (Conquest of Aleppo) terrorists group, Major Yasser Abdel Rahim, fled the battle against the Syrian army in Northern Aleppo and took shelter in Turkey. This marks a significant fall of the militants’ morale in the province.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has confirmed that one of their advisers to the Syrian army has been killed in ISIS shelling while fulfilling his duties with the Syrian army. It’s still unknown where the incident happened, nor the personality of the officer. He will receive an honor from the country, posthumously.

In the ongoing conflict, Syria relies heavily on Russian military equipment. It’s confirmed, there is an unspecified number of military advisers are teaching Syrians how to use Russian weapons. According to the unconfirmed reports and experts’ conclusions, Russian military advisers could be involved in coordination of the Syrian artillery units and coordination between the Syrian ground forces and the Russian Air Force.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: ISIS and Terrorist Organizations Decimated by Syrian Army and Russian Air Force

Syria’s Lost Generation

February 4th, 2016 by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Four million Syrian children have no means of getting to a school in safety because of the actions of marauding gangs of terrorists firing at the personnel of the Syrian Arab Army, police, ambulance and fire services. The rest of the world looks on and Russia apart, blames the legitimately elected President of the country, Bashar al-Assad.

The United Nations Organization is trying to coordinate an initiative called No Lost Generation, aiming to prioritize the education of Syria’s children before an entire generation has its schooling interrupted, losing important parts of the curriculum. UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and Africa, Peter Salama, states: “The scale of the crisis for children is growing all the time, which is why there are now such fears that Syria is losing a whole generation of its youth”.

UNICEF is co-hosting a conference held in London, UK, with a view to getting financing for the initiative from the representatives of over thirty nations who have committed to attend and with a view to solving the problem in the short and medium term. There are around four million Syrian children aged between five and seventeen years who need education assistance, among these being 2.1 million children inside Syria who cannot attend school because of the destabilization caused by gangs of terrorists aided, funded and abetted from outside the country and a further 700,000 children living as refugees in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Apart from these there are over a million children inside Syria engaged in informal learning activities with volunteers or unofficial schools where the delivery of the curriculum is not open to supervision or any degree of quality control.

Terrorist forces attack schools and murder and kidnap students and teachers

The conference will aim also to put pressure on armed groups, encouraging them not to attack schools or places of learning. UNICEF figures reveal that around a quarter of Syria’s schools cannot be frequented because the accommodation has been damaged beyond use or because they are being used as military headquarters or as shelters or hospitals. The killing and kidnapping of students and teachers for ransom payments has become common practice among the terrorist groups fighting against the Syrian Government forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Ten thousand missing children in Europe

The dire plight of Syria’s children was underlined this week with the revelation by Europol, the European police force that more than ten thousand unaccompanied migrant children have disappeared off the records, fueling claims that they have been sold into sexual slavery or become victims of some other form of abuse, over the last 24 months.

The news was given this week by Europol spokesperson Brian Donald, who stated that after registering in the countries where they arrived, the children simply disappeared. He claimed that the numbers are “ten thousand-plus”, five thousand of these in Italy.

While it is clear that some of these children will not have fallen into the hands of criminals and will be unofficially hosted with family members having crossed a border, Europol is aware that a criminal infrastructure has been set up in recent years to gain possession of these children and exploit them.

The total number of Syrian migrant children in the EU is estimated at some 270,000 among over one million people who have been forced to flee their homes because of the activity of terrorist gangs running amok in Syria, raping women, slicing the breasts off adolescent girls, raping nuns, setting fire to people, cutting the hearts out of Syrian Arab Army soldiers and eating them and other acts of demonic debauchery.

The solution? It appears obvious. Instead of aiding these terrorist groups by financing and arming them covertly, help the Government of Bashar al-Assad to regain control of the country which elected him in a free and fair plural, multi-candidate democratic election in 2014 with 88.7 per cent of the vote in an election monitored by some 30 nations with a 73% turnout.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria’s Lost Generation

The Militarization of Europe, The Dangers of a World War: “Never in the Cold War Had US Put Its Military Force So Close to Russia”

February 4th, 2016 by Sputnik

The decision to quadruple its military presence in Europe puts the US at its highest risk of a nuclear war with Russia, since the Cuban missile crisis of the early 1960s, as during the entire history of the mutual relationship it has never placed its military forces so close to Russia, according to Professor Stephen F. Cohen.

Referring to the recently announced US plan to quadruple its military presence in Europe, political analyst Professor Stephen F. Cohen called it an unprecedented and very dangerous provocation.

“We have never put our military force so close to Russia in the history going back to the 18th century,” he said during the John Batchelor Show.

“During the last Cold War our military presence ended in West Berlin. Now we are militarily right on Russia’s borders, at a minimum, in the three Baltic countries, Romania and Poland.”

The expert explained that it would mean the deployment of a lot of heavy military equipment into these countries near Russia, where the US military is going to create a permanent, fully equipped combat brigade that is going to rotate among these countries.“That is how they think they are complying with that NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997,” he said.

Referring to that particular document, Stephen F. Cohen noted that even though the above US move is a violation of the agreement, it was bogus from the beginning anyway. In the Act, NATO reiterated that

“in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defense and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.”

In other words, it gave Russia a pledge not to station forces permanently in Eastern Europe. However, there was left one small loophole in the deal: “current and foreseeable security environment.”

So, what NATO is desperately trying to prove is that there is a security threat to Eastern Europe, and it is due to “Russian aggression.” In this way, its permanent deployment in Eastern Europe won’t theoretically be a breach of the Act.

“So what we now have today is a moment when the New Cold War has become much harder due to a decision taken in Washington,” Professor Cohen says.

“It not only makes the new Cold War more militarized, confrontational, because all that equipment is going to be at the border with Russia, but it makes it more dangerous than the preceding Cold War because then we didn’t have any military power at or near the Russian border.”

“It is going to be permanent…It also makes the possibility for war-like provocations, I mean the war between Russia and the US becomes more likely.”

So, what is happening right now, according to Professor Cohen, is NATO testing Russia, provoking it and awaiting a reaction. Taken into account the possession of nuclear weapons on both sides, the US is in much more danger of a nuclear war with Russia, than there has ever been since the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s, he concluded.

And President Obama can’t hide from this now in silence and shadows, as he usually does with the foreign policy issues, he concluded.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Militarization of Europe, The Dangers of a World War: “Never in the Cold War Had US Put Its Military Force So Close to Russia”

Selected Articles: Zika Virus, GMOs and Toxic Chemicals.

February 4th, 2016 by Global Research News

_88064920_hi031253765Who Owns the Zika Virus?

By Guillaume Kress, February 03 2016

The WHO declared the Zika virus a global health emergency on February 1 without providing much detail on the disease. Zika is both a virus as well as a de facto commodity. Guess who owns the Patent of the Zika Virus?

ZIKA-CLOSE-UPZika Virus Intrauterine Infection Causes Fetal Brain Abnormality and Microcephaly: Tip of the Iceberg?

By A. S. Oliveira Melo, G. Malinger, R. Ximenes, P. O. Szejnfeld, S. Alves Sampaio, and A. M. Bispo de Filippis, February 04 2016

We bring to the attention of Global Research readers the Abstract of an important scientific study pertaining to the Zika virus outbreak.

melonEuropean Office Revokes Monsanto’s False Patent for GM Melons

By Christina Sarich, February 04 2016

France, Germany, and Spain filed a suit against Monsanto last year because the company tried to patent a non-GM tomato that was resistant to a common fungal disease (EP1812575). Now, the European Patent Office (EPO) is revoking another patent Monsanto has held on non-GM melons.

Monsanto-644x363West Coast US Cities Sue Monsanto over Toxic Chemicals

By Genevieve Leigh, February 03 2016

Last week, Seattle, Washington became the latest addition to the list of cities filing lawsuits against multinational corporation Monsanto, joining San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley in California, along with Spokane, Washington. These efforts, led by San Diego-based law firm Gomez Trial Attorneys, aim to extract tens of millions of dollars from the agrochemical company for knowingly promoting the severely hazardous line of polychlorinated biphenyls, more commonly known as PCBs.

gmo-corn-word-735-300-735x300“Lies, Lies and More Lies” – GMOs, Poisoned Agriculture and Toxic “Scientific Rants”

By Colin Todhunter, February 04 2016

Have you ever read all of those pro-GMO scientists-cum-lobbyists professing their love of science?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Zika Virus, GMOs and Toxic Chemicals.

Countries Sign The TPP… Whatever Happened To The ‘Debate’ We Were Promised Before Signing?

February 4th, 2016 by Mike Masnick

About an hour ago, representatives from 12 different nations officially signed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) agreement in Auckland, New Zealand. The date, February 4th (New Zealand time) is noteworthy, because it’s 90 days after the official text was released. There was a 90 day clock that was required between releasing the text and before the US could actually sign onto the agreement. The stated purpose of this 90 day clock was in order to allow “debate” about the agreement. Remember, the entire agreement was negotiated in secret, with US officials treating the text of the document as if it were a national security secret (unless you were an industry lobbyist, of course). So as a nod to pretend “transparency” there was a promise that nothing would be signed for 90 days after the text was actually released.

So… uh… what happened to that “debate”? It didn’t happen at all. The TPP was barely mentioned at all by the administration in the last 90 days. Even during the State of the Union, Obama breezed past the TPP with a quick comment, even though it’s supposedly a defining part of his “legacy.” But there’s been no debate. Because there was never any intent for an actual debate. The 90 day clock was just something that was put into the process so that the USTR and the White House could pretendthat there was more “transparency” and that they wouldn’t sign the agreement until after it had been looked at and understood by the public.

Of course, the signing is a totally meaningless bit of theater. The real fight is over ratification. The various countries need to ratify the TPP for the agreement to go into effect. Technically, the TPP will enter into force 60 days after all signers ratify it… or, if that doesn’t happen, within two years if at least six of the 12 participant countries ratify it and those six countries account for 85% of the combined gross domestic product of the 12 countries. Got that? In short, this means that if the US doesn’t ratify it, the TPP is effectively dead. The US needs a majority of both houses of Congress to approve it, similar to a typical bill. And that’s no sure thing right now. Unfortunately, that’s mainly because a group of our elected officials are upset that the TPP doesn’t go far enough in helping big businesses block competition, but it’s still worth following.

Inevitably, there will be some debate during the ratification process, though there are enough rumors suggesting that no one really wants to do it until after the Presidential election, because people running for President don’t want to reveal that they’re happy to sell out the public’s interest to support a legacy business lobbyist agenda. But, even that debate will likely be fairly limited and almost certainly will avoid the real issues, and real problems, with the TPP.

Either way, today’s symbolic signing should really be an exclamation point on the near total lack of transparency and debate in this process. The 90 day window was a perfect opportunity to have an actual discussion about what’s in the TPP and why there are problems with it, but the administration showed absolutely no interest in doing so. And why should it? It already got the deal it wanted behind closed doors. But, at least it can pretend it used these 90 days to be “transparent.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Countries Sign The TPP… Whatever Happened To The ‘Debate’ We Were Promised Before Signing?

“The Russians Are Coming”…NYT Proliferates the Big Lie About Russia Threatening America

February 4th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

NYT editors mock credible journalism, proliferating the Big Lie about nonexistent “Russian aggression,” posing the greatest threat to US security.

“It is undeniable that Russia has become openly aggressive under President Vladimir Putin, who has violated sovereign borders by annexing Crimea and stoking civil war in Ukraine,” they ranted.

 “A cease-fire in Ukraine was declared last year, but Russian forces still maintain a presence in eastern Ukraine, raising questions about whether Russia might try to extend its reach to the Baltic States.”

Fact: No responsible editors would touch this rubbish. They’d forthrightly denounce it.

Fact: It bears repeating. Putin is the world’s preeminent peacemaker – polar opposite Obama’s rage for endless premeditated wars of aggression, responsible for millions of deaths, countries raped, destroyed and pillaged, along with unspeakable human misery.

Fact: Putin violated no sovereign borders of any country, nor does he intend to. No credible evidence suggests otherwise.

Fact: Washington’s 2014 coup replaced Ukrainian democracy with illegitimate Nazi-infested putschists – waging naked aggression against their own people.

Fact: Crimeans overwhelmingly voted by independently monitored referendum to rejoin Russia and correct an historic mistake. Putin forthrightly accommodated them.

Fact: Russia has no military presence in eastern Ukraine, no intention “to extend its reach to the Baltic states.”

Fact: Kiev systematically violated Minsk I and II ceasefire agreements, bearing full responsibility for continuing conflict – with full support and encouragement from Washington.

What’s most important to report, NYT editors systematically suppress, substituting state-sponsored propaganda for real news, information and analysis.

Readers are consistently lied to. Credibility isn’t The Times long suit – a longstanding mouthpiece for wealth, power and privilege exclusively, the public interest be damned.

Increasing US-led NATO encroachment on Russia’s immediate borders represents a major threat to world peace. Times editors got it backwards, accusing Moscow’s defensive missile systems of “threaten(ing) NATO’s military access to airspace in parts of Europe…”

They irresponsibly bashed Putin’s vital anti-terrorist Syrian air campaign. They deplore peace and stability, in lockstep with US imperial lawlessness, its endless wars of aggression threatening humanity.

They consistently blame Russia and other regime change targeted nations for America’s high crimes, pure evil on an unprecedented scale.

Truth and full disclosure are systematically banned from its pages on issues mattering most. Managed news misinformation and Big Lies substitute.


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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Russians Are Coming”…NYT Proliferates the Big Lie About Russia Threatening America

Netanyahu’s Knesset on a Tragic Trajectory

February 4th, 2016 by Anthony Bellchambers

The coalition government of Binyamin Netanyahu is on a trajectory to oblivion because its Knesset members are so clever that in their arrogance they have made no provision for future generations.

It exhibits an extraordinary lemming-like agenda whereby Its citizens will eventually disappear without trace leaving only the curious artefacts of their political and moral bankruptcy.

In 100 years time, future indigenous Arab residents, will dig-up an Uzi machine gun and an old plutonium centrifuge casing from the Dimona nuclear weapons facility in the desert, and will no doubt remember the history of the inept regime of chosen people who used to strut their superiority around that place, in 2016, as their drones disseminated propaganda to a world that had already decided their fate.

As for current reality: the EU is nearly ready to implement a long-overdue, paradigm shift that will have huge political and economic impact upon the forces of illegal occupation in the current conflict.

 

[email protected]

London. February 4, 2016

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu’s Knesset on a Tragic Trajectory

Wall Street Donors Account for 40 Percent of Super PAC Funds in US Election

February 4th, 2016 by Barry Grey

The 2016 US election campaign has exposed deep-seated popular alienation from the entire political establishment and growing anger over the domination of US society and politics by Wall Street. Democratic contender Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, has capitalized on this sentiment by basing his campaign on denunciations of the “billionaire class” and an electoral process dominated by corporate money.

New figures on the funding of so-called “super PACs,” the nominally independent “political action committees” that are the main vehicles for corporate bribery of would-be officer-holders, shed light on the degree to which the political system is controlled by big business in general, and Wall Street in particular.

Statistics compiled from Federal Election Commission reports by the Center for Responsive Politics, an election watchdog group, and the Wall Street Journal show that cash from major banks and investment, real estate and insurance firms accounts for more than $116 million of the $290 million raised thus far in the current election cycle by super PACs and other independent campaign organizations. That amounts to 40 percent of the total.

In the second half of 2015, super PACs backing the various presidential candidates took in $100 million. Of this, $81.2 million came from the financial industry.

The weight of finance capital in funding the campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans has grown by leaps and bounds, particularly since the 2010 “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling that lifted all limits on corporate campaign donations via super PACs.

In the 2012 election, donations from the financial services sector comprised 20 percent, or $169 million, of the $845 million raised for the entire election cycle by super PACs and other independent campaign groups. Thus, as a share of total super PAC money, financial capital’s role has doubled in this year’s election cycle.

This compares to the “mere” $2.4 million of super PAC money donated by Wall Street in the 2004 election. Already in the 2016 election, the total from banks and financial firms is 70 times the level 12 years ago.

Former President Jimmy Carter felt obliged, in an interview Wednesday on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program, to denounce the US campaign finance system as “legalized bribery.” Carter, who was elected in 1976 and defeated in his reelection bid by Ronald Reagan in 1980, said, “As the rich people finance the campaigns, when candidates get in office they do what the rich people want. And that’s to let the rich people get richer and the middle class get left out.”

A Wall Street Journal article published Sunday provides details on Wall Street funding for various presidential candidates. The super PAC supporting Republican Senator Marco Rubio received over half of its money in the second half of 2015 from financial industry contributors. The two biggest donors were hedge fund billionaires Paul Singer (net worth of $2.1 billion) and Ken Griffin ($6.6 billion), who gave $2.5 million each in the last two months of the year. Hedge fund billionaire Cliff Asness and Florida mega-investor Mary Spencer each donated $1 million.

Half of the $5 million raised by the super PAC supporting Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey came from Wall Street, including a $2 million donation in December by hedge fund mogul Steven Cohen (net worth of $11.4 billion) and his wife, who also gave a combined $2 million to the super PAC in the first half of 2015.

The super PAC backing Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas received at least $11 million from billionaire hedge fund founder Robert Mercer and $10 million from private equity firm founder Toby Neugebauer.

The super PAC backing former Florida Governor Jeb Bush raised $10 million of its $15 million for the second half of 2015 from Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the former CEO of American International Group, the mega-insurance firm that was bailed out by the US government in 2008 to the tune of $182 billion. As of the end of September 2015, half of Bush’s top donors were employed by major financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Barclays, where Bush previously worked as a consultant making $2 million a year.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, is no slouch when it comes to Wall Street bribes. Of the $25 million raised by the super PAC supporting her in the second half of 2015, $15 million came from financiers. Nearly half of that came from billionaire investor George Soros (net worth of $24.5 billion).

Soros gave the pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action, $6 million in December, bringing his total in donations to $7 million. Priorities USA Action also received $3 million from entertainment industry investor Haim Saban (worth $3.6 billion) and his wife, who also gave $2 million earlier in the year.

These figures were compiled from incomplete Federal Election Commission filings, as most of the candidates and their associated super PACs had not filed with the FEC as of early Sunday evening. The deadline to do so was midnight Sunday.

The New York Times reported this week that a super PAC associated with the political network of the right-wing Republican Koch brothers (net worth of $44.3 billion each), reported Sunday that it had raised $11 million. The Koch brothers’ umbrella political organization, Freedom Partners, announced Saturday at its annual winter conference in California that it spent $400 million in 2015 to fund political and “philanthropic” organizations. That put the Koch political network at less than half of the two-year spending goal of $1 billion it announced last year.

Among those at the closed-door conference were two supporters of senators Rubio and Cruz, offering their obeisance in the hope of getting cash from the billionaire arch-reactionaries.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Wall Street Donors Account for 40 Percent of Super PAC Funds in US Election

Por trás da máscara “anti-EI”

February 4th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

Neste ano o Carnaval romano começou dia 2 de fevereiro, quando se exibiu na Farnesina (Ministério italiano das Relações Exteriores) o “small group”, o pequeno grupo ministerial (23 países mais a União Europeia) da “Coalizão global anti-Estado Islâmico (EI)”, presidido em conjunto pelo secretário de Estado dos EUA, John Kerry, e pelo ministro das Relações Exteriores da Itália, Paolo Gentiloni. Dele fazem parte, mascarados de antiterroristas, os maiores patrocinadores do terrorismo de “marca islâmica”, há décadas usado para minar e demolir os Estados que obstaculizam a estratégia do império.

À frente do desfile de máscaras se encontram os Estados Unidos e a Arábia Saudita. Estes que – segundo documenta uma pesquisa do New York Times de 24 de janeiro – armam e treinam os “rebeldes” a serem infiltrados na Síria para a operação “Timber Sycamore”, autorizada secretamente pelo presidente Obama em 2013, conduzida pela CIA e financiada por Riad com milhões de dólares. Confirmada pelas imagens de vídeo do senador estadunidense John McCain que, em missão na Síria por conta da Casa Branca, se encontra em maio de 2013 com Al Baghdadi, o “califa” chefe do chamado estado Islâmico”.

É a última das operações secretas EUA-Arábia Saudita, iniciadas nos anos 1970 e 1980: para desestabilizar Angola e outros países africanos, para armar e treinar os mujaedins no Afeganistão, e  apoiar os contras na Nicarágua. Isto explica por que os Estados Unidos não criticam a Arábia Saudita pela violação dos direitos humanos e a apoiam ativamente na guerra que provoca tragédias à população civil no Iêmen.

Fazem parte do grupo mascarado também a Jordânia e o Catar onde, como documenta o New York Times, a CIA constituiu as bases de treinamento dos “rebeldes”, incluindo “grupos radicais como a Al Qaeda”, para infiltrar na Síria e outros países. O Catar fornece para tais operações também comandos, como fez quando em 2011 enviou à Líbia ao menos cinco mil homens das forças especiais. “Nós, catarianos, estávamos entre os rebeldes líbios, às centenas, no terreno, em todas as regiões”, declarou posteriormente o chefe do estado maior Hamad al-Atiya (The Guardian, 26 de outubro de 2011).

Entre os “antiterroristas” que desfilam na Farnesina estão também os Emirados Árabes Unidos, que formaram em 2011 através do Blackwater um exército secreto de cerca de dois mil mercenários, dentre os quais cerca de 450 (colombianos e outros latino-americanos) estão agora empenhados na agressão ao Iêmen.

Está também o Bahrein que, depois de ter afogado em sangue a oposição democrática interna com a ajuda de tropas sauditas, agora retribui o favor apoiando a Arábia Saudita no massacre dos iemenitas, empreendimento em que participa o  Kuwait, também este membro do grupo “antiterrorista”.

Deste grupo também faz parte a Turquia, posto avançado da Otan na guerra contra a Síria e o Iraque, que apoiou o EI, enviando-lhe diariamente centenas de cargas de armas e outros materiais. Por ter publicado provas, também em vídeo, do fornecimento de armas ao EI por parte dos serviços secretos de Ancara, os jornalistas turcos Can Dündar e Erdem Gül foram presos e correm risco de condenação à pena de morte.

Entre as presenças ocidentais no grupo mascarado, destacam-se a França e a Grã Bretanha, que usam forças especiais e serviços secretos para operações secretas na Líbia, Síria e outros países.

Quem faz as honras da casa é a Itália, que contribuiu para incendiar o Norte da África e o Oriente Médio participando da demolição da Líbia. Onde agora se prepara para retornar, inclusive exercendo o papel de “líder”, para uma outra guerra sob o comando da dupla EUA/Otan, que, sob a máscara de “peacekeeping” (manutenção da paz), visa ao controle de zonas estratégicas e dos recursos energéticos líbios. Nos salões da Farnesina ecoam as notas de “Tripoli, bel suol d’amore”, a canção que em 1911 celebrava a guerra colonial na Líbia.

Manlio Dinucci

Fonte em italiano: 

http://ilmanifesto.info/dietro-la-maschera-anti-isis/

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para o Blog da Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo. 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Por trás da máscara “anti-EI”

Dietro la maschera «anti-Isis»

February 4th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

Quest’anno il Carnevale romano si apre il 2 febbraio, quando si esibisce alla Farnesina lo «small group», il piccolo gruppo ministeriale (23 paesi più la Ue) della «Coalizione globale anti-Daesh/Isis», co-presieduto dal segretario di Stato Usa John Kerry e dal ministro degli esteri Paolo Gentiloni.

Ne fanno parte, mascherati da anti-terroristi, i maggiori sponsor del terrorismo di «marca islamica», da decenni usato per minare e demolire gli Stati che ostacolano la strategia dell’impero. Alla testa della sfilata in maschera gli Stati uniti e l’Arabia Saudita. Quelli che – documenta una inchiesta del «New York Times» (24 gennaio) – armano e addestrano i «ribelli» da infiltrare in Siria per l’operazione «Timber Sycamore», autorizzata segretamente dal presidente Obama nel 2013, condotta dalla Cia e finanziata da Riyad con milioni di dollari. Confermata dalle immagini video del senatore Usa John McCain che, in missione in Siria per conto della Casa Bianca, incontra nel maggio 2013 Al Baghdadi, il «califfo» a capo dell’Isis.

È l’ultima delle operazioni coperte Usa-Saudite, iniziate negli anni Settanta e Ottanta: per destabilizzare l’Angola e altri paesi africani, per armare e addestrare i mujahiddin in Afghanistan, per sostenere i contras in Nicaragua.

Ciò spiega perché gli Stati uniti non criticano l’Arabia Saudita per la violazione dei diritti umani e la sostengono attivamente nella guerra che fa strage di civili nello Yemen. Fanno parte del gruppo mascherato anche la Giordania e il Qatar dove, documenta il «New York Times», la Cia ha costituito le basi di addestramento dei «ribelli», compresi «gruppi radicali come Al Qaeda», da infiltrare in Siria e altri paesi.

Il Qatar fornisce per tali operazioni anche commandos, come fece quando nel 2011 inviò in Libia almeno 5mila uomini delle forze speciali. «Noi qatariani eravamo tra i ribelli libici sul terreno, a centinaia in ogni regione», dichiarò poi il capo di stato maggiore Hamad al-Atiya («The Guardian», 26 ottobre 2011). Tra gli «antiterroristi» che si esibiscono alla Farnesina ci sono anche gli Emirati Arabi Uniti, che hanno formato dal 2011 tramite la Blackwater un esercito segreto mercenario di circa 2mila contractor, di cui circa 450 (colombiani e altri latinoamericani) sono ora impegnati nell’aggressione allo Yemen. C’è il Bahrain che, dopo aver schiacciato nel sangue l’opposizione democratica interna con l’aiuto delle truppe saudite, ora restituisce il favore affiancando l’Arabia Saudita nel massacro degli yemeniti, impresa a cui partecipa il Kuwait, anch’esso membro del gruppo «antiterrorista». Di cui fa parte la Turchia, avamposto Nato della guerra contro la Siria e l’Iraq, che ha sostenuto l’Isis inviandogli ogni giorno centinaia di tir carichi di armi e altri materiali.

Per aver pubblicato le prove, anche video, della fornitura di armi all’Isis da parte dei servizi segreti di Ankara, i giornalisti turchi Can Dündar e Erdem Gül sono stati arrestati e rischiano l’ergastolo.

Tra le presenze occidentali nel gruppo mascherato spiccano la Francia e la Gran Bretagna, che usano forze speciali e servizi segreti per operazioni coperte in Libia, Siria e altri paesi.

Fa gli onori di casa l’Italia, che ha contribuito a incendiare il Nordafrica e Medioriente partecipando alla demolizione della Libia. Dove ora si prepara a ritornare, addirittura col ruolo «guida», per un’altra guerra sotto comando Usa/Nato, che, mascherata da «peacekeeping», mira al controllo delle zone strategiche e delle risorse energetiche libiche. Nei saloni della Farnesina riecheggiano le note di «Tripoli, bel suol d’amore», la canzone che nel 1911 inneggiava alla guerra coloniale in Libia.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Dietro la maschera «anti-Isis»

Will the West Finally Admit the “Dirty Truth” Behind the So-Called Ukraine Revolution, Revealed by French Documentary

February 4th, 2016 by Paul Mansfield

Unfortunately, a copyright claim has limited the ability -temporarily-   to be able to watch online the riveting documentary by Paul Moreira, “Ukraine, les masques de la révolution” [Ukraine: Masks of the Revolution].

The producers at least have some legal basis to put a stop to viewing this video online. On the other hand, Ukraine trying to impose censorship on France has zero validity. Failed state authoritarianism may work for it in Ukraine, but did they honestly think a French TV station would listen to this.

This documentary lifts the veil on the deception of the US/Europe/NATO elites and their ever faithful media bullhorns. It informs us of a planned coup, described by the head of Stratfor as the most blatant ever, of the butchering of innocent people in the Odessa Trades Hall at the behest of politicians and oligarchs, and the continuing presence of heavily armed neo-Nazi thugs controlling the streets and occupying politically powerful positions in government.

I have heard the legal and geo-political arguments for and against the annexation or return of Crimea to Russia. No need to go into it here.

However, if you understand the rabid ultra-nationalism, the fever pitch blood lust and the climate of fear emanating out of the overthrow of Yanukovych and the aftermath, you will understand there was no real alternative.

The added element which struck such fear and dread in the Russian speaking Ukrainians of the east and south east was the rapid rise to prominence and infamy of the neo-Nazi militias, recast as such from their street thug roots.

A group of Crimean’s travelled to Maidan to express their democratic views. The Fort Russ website explains their fate.

Eight buses with Crimeans, who participated in Kiev in Antimaidan rallies, were returned home [after their opponents have won]. Near Korsun in Cherkasy oblast, the convoy was ambushed by the armed thugs from the Right Sector. As became known later, the Nazis were aware of the movement of the column and were expecting the Crimeans.

The captured buses were burned, their passengers were brutally tortured, beaten and humiliated. Several people were beaten to death and murdered.

One victim said:

“when we were in trouble, not one military, nor the police saved us. No one would give a damn. When they let us go, told us to pass a message that they will soon arrive in Crimea, and it will be much worse than in Kiev. I’m glad that someone will protect us.”

An empty threat? Hardly. They massacred over 100 at Maidan.

In May of 2014 they murdered over 40 in Odessa.

Journalists and politicians were murdered, others bashed, including 2 presidential candidates. They shouted “Russians on knives” and vowed to rampage in the east and wipe out anyone who dared to oppose their violent ultra-nationalism. Even the police were too scared to stop them as they smashed up Russian banks, bashed defenceless people on the street, took over buildings and tragically attacked the Trades Hall in Odessa.

When the survivor of the bus convoy said they were “glad that someone will protect us”, they naturally were referring to Vladimir Putin. Failure to act to protect would likely have seen the people of Crimea suffer the fate of many other Ukrainians, bombed in their homes by the military or bashed with poles and shot by thugs on the street.

Faced with this prospect, it would have been immoral not to act to ensure protection of Crimean’s. And what was their attitude to the vote to return to Russia? 96.7% in favour. That is what i call emphatic.

It is very unlikely the Russian troops based legally in Sevastapol, Crimea as part of the Black Sea Fleet, under a Russia/Ukraine 1997 agreement, would have allowed attacks on civilians or infrastructure. Vladimir Putin would have acted swiftly and decisively if any such attempts were made. The referendum ensured the safety of Crimean’s and defused a potential military conflict between Russian and Ukrainian forces.

Placing this in context, the indignant, self-righteous, hypocritical squawking among US and European political elites and their protectors in the mainstream media, ring hollow. Appeals to lofty idealism of the Helsinki Accords and the UN Charter regarding the so called Crimea “annexation” were disingenuous and cynical.

The video doesn’t extend to the crimes of the Ukrainian regime against the people of the Donbass, but there are plenty of videos that do.

Shelling of homes, schools, hospitals and factories was a deliberate strategy. The idea was to terrorise the population into submission or to flee, thus being a crime against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

There is an abundance of footage of civilians sifting through their destroyed houses, asking why has Poroshenko done this to them. People in shock said where are the terrorists here? We are all civilians here, normal men women and children. They said they just wanted to live in peace and were terrified at being bombed. They didn’t accept the legitimacy of the coup in Kiev, but, rather than engage in dialog, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk engaged in inflammatory language of claiming the people were terrorists and they would not stop until all the terrorists were wiped out.

Such aggression understandably sent shivers up the spines of the people in Lugansk and Donetsk. The sense of foreboding is unmistakable in videos I have seen in the period between February and May 2014, when the “anti-terror operation” swung into action. The action was the slaughter of innocent civilians. Under impartial justice, the regime in Kiev would be held accountable for their crimes. However we know we live in a world of victors justice, where the victors sneer when valid accusations are made against them, while at the same time they triumphantly pursue the losers, adding insult to injury.

Imagine a government which calls millions of its citizens terrorists. Citizens which weeks before were seen as part of the citizenry. Clearly the Kiev regime was pandering to a militarised and powerful ultra-nationalist movement. This was a movement who weren’t satisfied with the ouster of Yanukovych, something which wouldn’t have happened if not for their brutal violence. Emboldened, they believed they should be rewarded. And rewarded they were too, with positions in government, including in key military and security ministries.

These forces, namely thugs from Right sector, Azov, Aidar, Odessa and Dnepr battalions, were unleashed on the people of Ukraine, causing mayhem as they swarmed eastward.

The people of the east heard about the atrocities proudly carried out by these Nazis. The Odessa massacre, the Mauriopol massacre, the murders and disappearance of the bus convoy bound for Crimea; the killing and public bashings of journalists; the brazen attacks on politicians, forcibly removing government officials and replacing them with oligarch backed puppets.

If anything, Russia has not taken enough action in protecting Russians in Ukraine. It is likely, but not proven that equipment was supplied to the separatists. Russian volunteers fought alongside the separatists, but is that so strange? After all they were fighting alongside and defending fellow Russians.

The people of Eastern Ukraine had one shared belief. They did not at all accept the legitimacy of the Kiev junta. A CIA/State Department coup, where members of the interim government were hand picked. This included Oleh Tyahnybok, a far right extremist of the Svoboda Party. Washington is more than happy for extremists to give regime change a bit of biffo.

Apart from that, there was a division among people who wanted to join Russia, and were desperate for Putin to do what was necessary to achieve re-unification (not likely without considerable military force). As an aside, some of the delusionalists among the Nazi ultra-nationalists were just itching to fight some Russians. A report from the US think tank, the Rand Corporation, shows Russia would conquer Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in a (theoretical) war within 60 hours. Is there any greater self-deception and delusions of grandeur than that of the mindless extremist? You are not going to get much chance at fighting when the adversary is at the doorstep of the Verkhovna Rada within hours.

The desire of others was to be granted special status in a decentralised Ukraine, which was incorporated into the Minsk 2 agreement of February 2015. This is being delayed by a reluctant Kiev regime failing to introduce the necessary constitutional reform for this to be realised. The Poroshenko regime is all too aware that the ultra-nationalists are livid at this prospect and will do what they can to sabotage constitutional change. Ultra-nationalists such as Right Sector and Svoboda have called for the impeachment of Poroshenko, highlighting the honeymoon is well and truly over. Training, arming and incorporating neo-Nazis into the national security establishment may be the biggest mistake the Kiev junta ever made.

Poroshenko may be the next President to flee, dodging bullets in the middle of the night.

The people of the Donbass may be relatively physically safe due to de-escalation, though not total cessation of hostilities. This however has not made life easier in their ruined cities as they rely on Russia for humanitarian aid and support. They are however seeking to be self- reliant and using the industrial capacity of the region to work towards this self-sufficiency.

Given the horrendous events since early 2014, it is hard to see a unified Ukraine. Autonomy or incorporation into Russia is the inevitable desire of people traumatised by the loss of their loved ones.

Grief with time subsides. Anger at the US sponsored Kiev war criminals on the other hand may be eternal.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will the West Finally Admit the “Dirty Truth” Behind the So-Called Ukraine Revolution, Revealed by French Documentary

The Truth: America Created Daesh (ISIS)

February 4th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

America created global terrorist groups at least since the CIA’s involvement against Soviet Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Virtually all headline-making groups are US creations, or offshoots from them, used as imperial foot soldiers – recruited from scores of countries, armed, funded, trained and directed to serve Washington’s pure evil agenda, its quest for unchallenged global dominance, its endless wars of aggressions, its ravaging and destroying one nation after another.

At a Rome news conference with his Italian counterpart Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, John Kerry was interrupted by a woman, accusing America of “creat(ing) Daesh,” shouting a vital truth in public, reported on Italian state-owned RAI television.

Many others continue to explain the same thing, this writer numerous times. Last August, former US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) head/retired Lt. General Michael Flynn cited official US documents, proving creating ISIS was “a willful (Obama administration) decision.”

The so-called war against it and America’s “war on terror” are complete fabrications, proliferated by US officials and supportive media. 

Washington consistently violates Security Council Resolution 2178 (September 2014), calling on member states to “suppress the recruiting, organizing, transporting, equipping and financing of foreign terrorist fighters” (ISIS and related groups).

A declassified 2012 US report said “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime” and replace it.

Russia’s intervention last year appears to have foiled Washington’s best laid plans, aiming to redraw the Middle East map, destroying Syrian sovereignty key, increasingly looking like a failed objective.

The region remains on the boil, a cauldron of endless violence, instability and chaos – America’s pure evil agenda entirely responsible.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Truth: America Created Daesh (ISIS)

Canadian Academic Dr. Hassan Diab, Wrongfully Convicted for a Crime He did not Commit

February 4th, 2016 by Indiegogo

We want to use the power of the documentary form to tell the story of our friend Dr. Hassan Diab [pictured left], a Canadian academic who is at serious risk of a wrongful conviction for a crime he did not commit.

Hassan was extradited to France in November 2014, where he is expected to stay in pretrial detention for at least two years. In France, Hassan is subjected to an unjust legal process where discredited handwriting analysis and unsourced intelligence are used against him.

We would like to make a good quality documentary for online sharing and public showings to spread the word far and wide about the injustices in Hassan’s case. We hope this documentary will help raise awareness about Hassan’s case and Canada’s unfair extradition law, stop the use of discredited evidence against Hassan, and prevent his wrongful conviction.

Hassan’s Kafkaesque Case:

  • Imagine one day you are approached by a foreign journalist who informs you that you are under investigation for a crime that you know nothing about…
  • Imagine spending a year of your life being intensively surveilled and aggressively followed by mysterious people…
  • Imagine being arrested one year later and thrown into solitary confinement
  • Imagine that the “smoking gun” evidence against you is totally flawed handwriting analysis based on just five words written in block letters…
  • Imagine that the case against you is allowed to continue even after it becomes known that many of the writings that were “matched” to those of the suspect are not even yours…
  • Imagine not being allowed to enter into evidence the fact that your palm and fingerprints don’t match those presumed to be from the suspect…
  • Imagine that the discredited  “evidence” is used against you and that you are extradited and thrown in prison thousands of miles away from your family, friends, and community…

It can’t be true, but it is! Thanks to Canada’s unfair extradition law, citizens are shipped to other countries based on the flimsiest evidence that is not accepted in Canadian court, including to countries that rely on secret and unsourced intelligence.

Hassan Diab Support Committee

We aim to raise CAD $15,000 to cover the expense of making the documentary. Donations in excess of this amount will go towards Hassan’s legal defence.

Please donate to our crowdfunding campaign and help us publicise it!

Email: [email protected]

Notes:

“Canada must demand fair investigation by France in case of Hassan Diab”, by Gerald Caplan, The Globe and Mail, November 9, 2015

“One year after extradition to France, Ottawa academic still pushes for freedom”, by Chris Cobb, Ottawa Citizen, November 9, 2015

“Civil society must prevent Hassan Diab’s wrongful conviction”, by Tyler Levitan, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, May 2015 

“Canada’s extradition law: A legal conundrum”, by Chris Cobb, Ottawa Citizen, November 14, 2014

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Academic Dr. Hassan Diab, Wrongfully Convicted for a Crime He did not Commit

New Israeli Stop and Frisk Police State Law Targets Palestinians and Black African Asylum Seekers Exclusively

February 4th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Ostensibly it targets anyone for any reason or none at all – permitting random indiscriminate stop and frisks without just cause.

In fact, it’s directed at Palestinians and Black African asylum seekers, meant to further harass, denigrate and persecute them, another example of Israeli viciousness – a tyrannical fascist regime masquerading as democratic.

Until now, stopping and frisking required just cause, a reasonable suspicion of possible intended wrongdoing. No longer. Anyone can be indiscriminately harassed and humiliated – Palestinians and Black Africans specifically targeted.

MK Michal Rozin blasted the new law, saying it “flagrantly ignore(s) the daily distress of weak groups, who suffer serious discrimination in Israel. Police are no less racist than anyone else.”

Joint (Arab) List MK Jamal Zahalka said the new law “unleashed” security forces to do what they please unaccountably.

Ahead of Monday’s vote, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) warned “Ethiopians, Arabs and people of Middle Eastern appearance (will) suffer.”

Regime officials claimed the measure is meant to deal with ongoing violence – entirely state-sponsored. Notorious racist Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan proposed the new law, saying:

“Following recent terrorist attacks, there is an urgent need to give the police authority to conduct body searches to better deal with knife terrorism” – one of the many regime Big Lies, Erdan adding”

“This is another step I am promoting in a series of decisions to strengthen the police and its authority to increase personal security on the street.”

Police states operate exclusively by their own rules, ignoring fundamental international human rights laws, Israel a notorious violator throughout its sordid history.

Zionist extremism is the scourge of Jews and non-Jews alike – reckless, ruthless, lawless. Israeli racism is institutionalized.

A previous article discussed hardline Knesset members rejection of Joint (Arab) List MK Jamal Zahalka’s draft measure, calling for inclusion of an equality clause in Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

It considers equality for all its citizens an existential threat. Dozens of racist laws were enacted throughout its history, denigrating Arab citizens, imposing brutal military rule on Occupied Palestinians.

On February 3 alone, Israeli security forces killed three Palestinians, abducted dozens, rampaged through numerous Palestinian communities, terrorized families and traumatized children.

Ramallah is now isolated and blocked, an IDF spokeswoman, saying “(i)n accordance with situation assessments following (a weekend incident), only residents of Ramallah are allowed to enter the city.”

The ban applies to international visitors, more evidence of collective punishment – the way all police states operate.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Israeli Stop and Frisk Police State Law Targets Palestinians and Black African Asylum Seekers Exclusively

Rewriting the Rules of the Global Economy: German Judges’ Damning Indictment of TTIP Trade and Investment Deal

February 4th, 2016 by Nick Dearden

Germany’s biggest association of judges has injected some sense into the debate about the sinister EU-US trade deal being negotiated behind closed doors, says Nick Dearden.

A GROUP of German judges have just dealt a serious blow to the European Commission’s desperate TTIP “compromise.”

They’ve issued a damning indictment on the proposal for an “international investment court,” which the EU Commission hoped would get them out of the deep mess that the TTIP negotiations are in.

To recap: millions of people across Europe have expressed outrage at the proposal in the US-EU trade deal known as TTIP for a corporate court system which allows foreign corporations to sue governments in secret arbitration panels.

Formally known as the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the corporate courts are already being used in countless other treaties to sue governments for anything from raising the minimum wage to protecting the environment.

So EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom came up with a “compromise.” Rather than operating an ad hoc corporate court system, she wants to set up a proper, permanent international court for investors, with proper judges and more transparency.

The problem, of course, is that this simply lends a whiff of legitimacy to a system which puts the profits of corporations ahead of the rights of ordinary people.

But the #noTTIP campaigners feared the compromise might win a few important votes over in the European Parliament.

Thank heavens, therefore, for Germany’s biggest association of judges, which has injected some sense into the discussion.

Its statement “rejects the proposal of the European Commission to establish an investment court,” saying there is no “legal basis nor the necessity” for such a court.

A primary concern of the judges — and one shared by campaigners — is that “the creation of special courts for certain groups of litigants is the wrong way forward.”

Creating special legal privileges for big business and other investors (who can already afford more access to the law than ordinary people) is clearly the path to further inequality in our already deeply unequal society.

In fact, the judges question whether “the European Union has the competence to institute an investment court” given that it would force member states to submit to that court, and therefore undermine their sovereignty.

The court “would not only limit the legislative powers of the [European] Union and the member states; it would also alter the established court system within the member states and the European Union.”

The judges are really clear on this point: the court would be “outside the institutional and judicial framework of the Union” and would “deprive courts of member states of their powers in relation to the interpretation and application of European Union law and the court of its powers to reply.”

Anyone who says they are concerned about our sovereignty in the upcoming debate on the EU surely has no choice but to oppose TTIP.

The judges also criticise the independence of “judges” foreseen under the investor court proposal, saying: “The pool of judges will be limited to the circle of persons already professionally predominantly engaged in international arbitration.”

In other words, the investment court merely becomes a permanent version of the ISDS system that is proving to be so unpopular. Which is exactly what campaigners are worried about.

This is a really important opinion. The judges show that the assumptions behind the corporate courts — that investors aren’t properly protected — lacks a “factual basis.”

What’s more, even if it was the case, such concerns “should be taken up with the national legislature.”

Of course, this hasn’t happened. That’s because the whole point of TTIP is not to redress a genuine problem but to rewrite the rules of the global economy in favour of big business. A group of German judges has now made that a little bit harder to do.

Nick Dearden is director of Global Justice Now.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rewriting the Rules of the Global Economy: German Judges’ Damning Indictment of TTIP Trade and Investment Deal

Trans Pacific Partnership Ceremony a Farce: Tough National Battles Await Bad Trade Deal

February 4th, 2016 by Friends of the Earth

Today trade ministers from 12 countries party to the giant ‘Trans Pacific Partnership’ (TPP) held a symbolic signing of a trade deal, which sets economic and pro-corporate rules for 40 percent of the world economy.

Friends of the Earth International warned that the ‘Trans Pacific Partnership’, or TPP, will threaten people and planet, if ratified.

Sam Cossar-Gilbert, Friends of the Earth International Economic Justice Resisting Neo-Liberalism Coordinator, said:

“The TPP signing ceremony is nothing more than a photo opportunity to try and prop up this deeply unpopular and environmentally destructive deal. Trade ministers know that it will be very difficult to ratify the TPP in national parliaments, particularly in the US where all leading presidential candidates oppose it.”

“The people protesting on the streets of New Zealand today represent the widespread opposition to this corporate trade deal across the pacific. The fight against TPP is growing and we must make sure this 6000-page injustice never sees the light of day.”

“The TPP would undermine environmental regulations on a vast range of issues including food safety, access to medicine, genetic modification, chemical use and climate change.  For example it would protect “free trade” in dirty energy products and lead to an increase in coal, oil and gas exports, fueling global warming.”

”TPP includes the controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism that enables foreign corporations to sue governments for adopting policies that could harm their expected profits. Just this month, TransCanada announced that it would use ISDS to sue the United States for $15 billion for disallowing a dirty  tarsands oil pipeline. TPP will further undermine government’s ‘right to regulate’, which is why legislators should reject this bad deal.”

 

For more information contact

Friends of the Earth International Economic Justice, Resisting Neoliberalism Coordinator: Sam Cossar-Gilbert, +33 7 50 91 89 83, [email protected]

Friends of the Earth US, Senior trade analyst, Bill Waren, +1 202 222 0746, [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trans Pacific Partnership Ceremony a Farce: Tough National Battles Await Bad Trade Deal

“Lies, Lies and More Lies” – GMOs, Poisoned Agriculture and Toxic “Scientific Rants”

February 4th, 2016 by Colin Todhunter

Have you ever read all of those pro-GMO scientists-cum-lobbyists professing their love of science? They are always talking about how science must prevail over ignorance and ideology then they play on the public’s ignorance by using ideology and sloganeering to try to get their points across. 

As has been well documented (see here and here), it is the pro-GMO lobby/industry that distorts and censors science, captures regulatory bodies, attacks scientists whose findings are unpalatable to the industry and bypasses proper scientific and regulatory procedures altogether.

You also see the same people attacking and demonising credible scientists because their research throws up some very uncomfortable findings for the pro-GM cause. And they try to debunk peer-reviewed science with unscientific polemics (see this on the criticisms of Professor Seralini and his team had to endure), while masking their own conflicts of interests and industry links (also see this).

They accuse people who have concerns about GM as being inept, politically motivated and liars. In doing so, they try (but fail) to divert attention from their own lies, misrepresentations and political agenda. It is a classic case of psychological projection.

Shanthu Shantharam recently wrote the piece ‘Lies, Lies and More Lies‘ that was a textbook example of this. Laced with deception, bluster and insults, he attacked individuals, accused them of being bombastic and liars and claimed that the introduction of GM crops to India had been delayed due to anti-GM activists and Greenpeace.

Frustrated by the inability of the pro-GM lobby to get GM food crops commercialised in India, Shantharan begins by saying:

“It is again that time when the India’s usually-in-slumber apex biotechnology regulatory body, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) has woken up, dusting itself off to decide whether to approve genetically modified (GM) mustard, an oil crop of considerable economic significance to the country.”

By promoting a fallacious economic justification for embracing GM mustard, he is conveniently ignoring the impact of trade policies that destroyed much of the indigenous mustard industry in India after the mid-1990s. If, as a bio-technologist, Shantharam wants to discuss economics, he would benefit from a lesson in the neo-liberal trade policies outlined here, which results in India now spending so much on buying in edible oil from abroad.

Moreover, the higher yields often attributed to the GM mustard under discussion are not due to GM but to the hybridisation of normal crop genes (ie conventional breeding). Campaigner Aruna Rodrigues argues that the use of high-yielding hybrids is a deliberate ploy to camouflage the yield attributable to the hybrid and assign it to the GM crop instead.

Anti-GM malcontents or unremitting fraud?  

Shantharam claims the delay in sanctioning GM crops is due to “anti-GM malcontents” and environmentalists who want to tie up “technology products in the regulatory quagmire, and hope that the whole technology dies off in due course of time” and who are “talking unscientific rubbish about GM crops just like many other anti-GM Luddites.”

The ‘Luddites’ slur is standard, lazy PR spin designed to try to denigrate valid concerns. It is nothing but a desperate attempt to steer the debate away from the social, political and economic issues that cause, hunger and poverty and promote GM as a proxy.

Like other lobbyists, Shantharam promotes the lie that the debate is over dusted where GM safety and efficacy are concerned. However, GRAIN challenges the myths that the pro-GM lobby likes to build its house of cards on, and this article illustrates how its cheap propaganda attempts to twist the debate for its own ends. Moreover, the book ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ highlights how GM is not based on sound science at all but on the systematic subversion of it.

Although Shantharam attacks bureaucracy and forwards his usual tirades about anti-GM ideologues for conspiring to prevent the introduction of GM, it is with good reason that this week the Supreme Court sought an explanation from the central government on its proposed move to introduce herbicide resistant mustard, cotton and corn in the face of a court-imposed ban on their introduction. The court asked the Attorney General of India to explain his stand on a contempt petition filed against the members of the committee which cleared the proposal.

The petition (read in full here), filed by Aruna Rodrigues, sought action against members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee for flouting court orders. Rodrigues says the government wilfully and deliberately not only conducted small-scale field trials but also large-scale field trials for commercial introduction of herbicide tolerant crops of mustard, cotton and corn in India for the first time.

The petition says: “These field trials have ignored fundamental bio-safety precautions as ordered by the court. Contamination during open field trials is specifically barred in the order of May 8, 2007.” It continued: “In the light of this specific order… regulatory adventurism… is particularly unconscionable as they expose India to undue and high risk of GMO contamination of our food crops.”

It adds that the risk of contamination from GM mustard and corn is of an unprecedentedly high order and proven in other cases involving Canada, Japan and Mexico (corn) and US (rice). The petition declares there is a collective irresponsibility displayed by the regulators, ministries concerned and institutions of GMO governance, demonstrating a clear agenda to push GMOs into India’s agriculture.

Rodrigues argues the approval of large-scale trials is undisguised malfeasance and regulatory delinquency. The members of the GEAC are said to be in contempt of court because: they have failed to provide public access to information, including full bio-safety dossiers, meeting minutes and safety dossiers, thus side-lining court orders, and they have failed to implement bio-safety measures during open field trials to ensure no contamination, which for GM mustard is a serious issue, as the petition makes clear.

The claim is that no active testing for contamination with validated protocols was done to demonstrate regulatory commitment to contain risk under the supervision of named scientists. Furthermore, as a herbicide-tolerant crops have been advised against and brings about various health and environmental dangers (see this and this too). It is thus with good reason that the final report of the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee report of June-July 2013 specifically recommended a ban on HT crops.

The petition goes on to state:

“The regulatory vacuum constitutes deliberate malfeasance and fraud, putting us at infinite and irremediable and irreversible risk.”

And driving home the point, the petition adds:

“… what we are now confronted with, in the specific matter of Mustard DMH 11 and also LSTs (large-scale trials) of corn and flex cotton, all of them HT crops, is more corrupt and even sinister because we have brazen and repeated contempt including ‘underground’ approvals to keep the bio-safety fraud of these approvals secret and promote a clear agenda to promote GMOs into Indian Agriculture. The Regulators and our Institutions of GMO governance are ‘serial offenders’ without compunction.”

The conclusion is that there seems to be no room for transparency in this process. Rodrigues describes the push for GM in India to be based on “unremitting fraud” and is right to be concerned about contamination. But that doesn’t seem to bother some, like Shatharam.

They seem to think it is fine to bypass proper procedures, ignore the various high-level reports advising against GM in India, draw a veil of secrecy over processes and misrepresent the case for GM crops in a rush to get GM into India at the behest of their tansnational agribusiness masters.

Of course, a strategy of deliberate contamination to render the GM/non-GM debate meaningless should not be dismissed lightly and is part of the overall agenda.

The scientific consensus on GM is a big lie

Shantharam has long specialised in attacking scientists whose findings challenge his agenda by depicting them as mavericks and standing outside the ‘scientific community’. This time, he argues that critics of GM rely on a “parallel science” created by a handful of anti-GM scientists. According to Shantharam, these scientists’ negative researches have been rigorously reviewed by the mainstream scientists and leading regulatory bodies and have been declared invalid.

This is simply not true. Shantharam seems to think public relations techniques and falsehoods will suffice. What he offers is personal opinion and PR masquerading as fact, which he hopes will be taken as truth, not least because he dangles a science doctorate before the public. He is not the only one who adopts this tactic. Forget the spin and look at the reality.

Food & Water Watch states that biotechnology seed companies, aided by advocates from academia and the blogopsphere, are using their substantial resources to broadcast the myth of a ‘scientific consensus’ on the safety of GMOs, asserting that the data is in and the debate is over.

In its report of September 2014, the group dismisses the so-called scientific consensus that Shantharam uses to forward his agenda.

The report notes:

“The “scientific bodies” that purportedly are part of the “consensus” are few in number and are by no means representative of the entire scientific community. They have not signed on to a specific “consensus” statement nor have they, in most cases, actually developed policy positions on the subject. By and large, the GMO-consensus campaign has misquoted or misrepresented these scientific bodies to falsely assert that they are part of a “consensus” on GMO safety.”

It goes on to state that the GMO-consensus campaign points to the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal Society of London as part of the scientific ‘consensus’, but neither organisation has an official policy on GMO safety. The report notes the positions of several other leading scientific institutions and academies across the world that the pro-GM consensus campaign has used to forward its case. It concludes that the campaign uses a mix of cherry-picked quotes, industry-backed sources and misrepresentations of positions held to feed its spin.

One only has to look at Steven Druker’s open letter to the Royal Society in Britain to also appreciate just how prestigious institutions (or their members) engage in campaigns and tactics to push through a pro-GM agenda that has nothing to do with science. Moreover, hundreds of independent scientists – almost all of them holding advanced degrees in relevant fields – have come forward to condemn the GMO-consensus campaign, explicitly saying that there is “no consensus” on the safety of GMOs. Readers may also be interested in this article, which also highlights just who has said what about the safety of GM and puts paid to the big lie of a ‘scientific consensus’.

Shantharam claims all that anti-GM people do is propagate lies in the hope that if they are repeated often enough, people will believe them. With no sense of irony or indeed shame, he claims that all credible science is on the side of GM and only a few incompetent maverick scientists indulge in anti-GM “parallel science.”

Perhaps he thinks that by propagating a falsehood time and again, people will believe it.

Aside from there being no consensus among scientific institutions, the Food & Water Watch report dismisses claims that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature and again points to the case being misrepresented via a mix of industry-supported sources and listing studies that do not claim there is safety regarding GM and which are not independent of the bio-tech industry, although the campaign depicts them as such.

Shantharam accuses critics of GM, whether scientists or campaigners, of indulging in invalid parallel science, bombast and lies. The reader can form their own conclusions on just whom is engaging in what.

Lies, lies and more lies

His article is a blend of smears, falsehoods and deceit, which continues into the area of GM cotton. He claims Bt cotton in India has been a runaway success and churns out the myth that farmers have overwhelmingly adopted it. For good measure, he argues that if it were not for cutting edge technology of the green revolution, millions would have died in South Asia.

This is more spin. It has been highlighted time and again that GM cotton in India is not the success he claims it to be (for instance, see this and this), that farmers do not necessarily actively choose GM (contrary to what Shantharam’s neo-liberal ideological underpinnings would like us to believe, the actual reality is set out here, here, here, here and here) and that the green revolution has caused immense damage to agriculture, farmers and ecology in India, not least in terms of soil and health. Even its perceived successes are overstated and must be placed into a wider context, including the closing off of alternative approaches as a result of the rush towards and prioritising of export-oriented petro-chemical agriculture, which has been usedto create food deficit areas across the world.

According to Shantharam, genetic engineering is an extension of classical plant breeding technologies and a lot more precise set of tools to manipulate gene-coding DNA. Wrong again. There is enough evidence to show that GE is not an extension of classical plant breeding techniques and enough evidence to indicate a lack of precision that should merit concern (for example, see section one of this report, this and this). Such claims have become standard among the pro-GM lobby and are in part designed to try to remove GM from regulatory processes and procedures to get them onto the market.

Finally, as if to gloss over all of the corruption and the capturing of regulatory agencies by global agribusiness and their compliant officials and politicians, Shantharam attempts to dismiss such concerns by implying critics of GM conveniently see conspiracy everywhere. Simply more spin and at odds with the actual political reality.

He finishes by saying it is essential to stop a bunch of anti-GM campaigners with commercial interests in what he perceives to be grossly inadequate organic farming (another baseless claim: see this and this) from creating a controversy over GM where none exists.

Such deluded wishful thinking. There is a massive and genuine controversy about GM, and the public as consumers, not just organic farmers, are very concerned. Or is everyone to be dismissed as liars and fools and their concerns brushed aside?

If we are to discuss commercial interests, consider the financial position of the biotech industry (consider Monsanto’s profits and its value as a company) and the massive influence it has over science, governments and policies (see this, this, this and this) – not to mention the $100 million spent to prevent labelling GMOs in the US and the amount spent on lobbying, advertising and campaign donations (see this spending by Monsanto for the US alone). And its massive influence in India should not be discounted (see this and this), although it is clear some wish it could.

It puts into perspective the ludicrous assertion that activists are driving the debate, brainwashing people and determining policy. But why bother with any of this when a good old unhealthy dose of twisted truths, pro-GM bluster and psychological projection will do? After all, this is what Shantharam has been engaging in for years.

“The long winded toxic argument by Dr Shantharam is not meant for any scientific discussion. It is to discredit all the independent studies done in India in order to bring pressure on GEAC to renew the permission to Monsanto… Bravo Dr Shantharam, you have done a yeoman service to your masters but on the day of judgement in a future not so far away, scientists like you will be remembered as “Enemies of the People”.”  P V Satheesh in response to a piece by Shantharam from some years ago.

Some things never change.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Lies, Lies and More Lies” – GMOs, Poisoned Agriculture and Toxic “Scientific Rants”

“It’s You Who Created Daesh”: Message to John Kerry at Italy Press Conference, Everybody Knows that ISIS is Made in America…

February 4th, 2016 by RT

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Italy was disrupted by a cry of protest at his joint press conference with Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, when a woman in the audience shouted, “it’s you who created Daesh!”

The press conference was coming to an end, when the woman stood up from the public, her head covered up by a black veil.

“It’s you who created Daesh!” she shouted at the two ministers, using another name for the terror group Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), reported the Italian state-owned television channel RAI.

The woman was dragged away from the conference by the Carabinieri.

After meeting with Gentiloni, Kerry said he was convinced that the US-led international coalition would “crush ISIS” eventually. His Italian counterpart expressed much more caution.

“There have been steps forward on the ground with respect to the Paris summit. But no triumphalism is warranted, we must continue the armed effort in Iraq,” Gentiloni said.

He added that in the fight against IS “important progress has been made,” although “we are faced with a very resilient organization and therefore we must not underestimate it.”

The protester in Italy is not the first to accuse Washington of aiding the rise of IS. One former US Marine has blamed the self-proclaimed caliphate on the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I knew what I was seeing was wrong, I knew it was immoral, I knew it was unjust, I knew it was illegal,” Vincent Emanuele told RT in December 2015,“ and “I knew that we would pay severe consequences in the form of the blowback as we are seeing with groups like ISIS.”

In 2012, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) warned the government that “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The Obama administration made a “willful decision” to ignore the warning, former DIA Director Lieutenant General Michael Flynn told Al Jazeera in August of last year.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “It’s You Who Created Daesh”: Message to John Kerry at Italy Press Conference, Everybody Knows that ISIS is Made in America…

The Legacy of George W Bush: 10 Million Refugees and 250,000 Deaths over the Past Five Years

February 4th, 2016 by Anthony Bellchambers

Many believe that the root cause of the current forced mass movement of people and the loss of life that it has entailed, can be traced back to the fraudulent Middle East wars that destabilised the region; orchestrated by an incompetent US president, G W Bush and his British cohort, Tony Blair. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have, to date, borne the brunt of this human tide of refugees but the whole of Europe is now having to deal with the severe financial and political impact upon social housing, medical and educational services – and, of course, jobs.

The individual responsible for this biblical-scale migration is the now 70 year old former baseball team owner, ex-president G W Bush who took America to two disastrously failed wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. His presidency has been ranked amongst the worst in US history. This is a man who had difficulty speaking English: who had no known personal assets but was elected to high office by an accident of history and thereby changed the world irrevocably for the worse. Millions have died as a consequence of the actions of this one single American cowboy who still personifies the banality of US politics at its worst.

Meanwhile, nearly a third of the world is embroiled in increasing conflict as we reap still the whirlwind of the actions of this caricature of a US Republican statesman.

The fear, today, is that the world might yet have to endure another one.

[email protected]
London. February 3, 2016

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Legacy of George W Bush: 10 Million Refugees and 250,000 Deaths over the Past Five Years

Beijing vs. Washington: The Battle for Southeast Asia. “Free Trade” and US Economic Hegemony

February 4th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

The Strait Times published an opinion piece by the London-based Rob Edens. Wishfully titled, “South-east Asia fast becoming unfriendly territory for China,” it attempts to portray Southeast Asia as increasingly pivoting West toward Washington, coincidentally just as Washington was “pivoting” East toward Asia.

Edens’ attempts to outline Beijing and Washington’s respective strategies in the region by stating:

On the one hand, China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative, for instance, is focused on physical infrastructure; improving road, rail and air networks overland between neighbouring states as a means to oil the cogs of commerce and bring new customers into China’s fold. On the other hand, the US-led Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) maintains a discourse of freer trade in the Pacific region, opening up new markets overseas by relaxing tariffs and increasing various standards relating to the process of manufacture.

Lost on Edens appears to be the fact that physical infrastructure built beyond China’s borders becomes a long-term asset for those who cooperate in its construction, while Western “free trade” is in all reality, submission to foreign economic hegemony. Many aspects of “free trade” agreements are in fact, stripped verbatim from treaties that defined Colonial Europe and its subjugation of Southeast Asia.

“Free Trade” is Code for Economic Hegemony 

Edens seems to believe that “free trade” is a viable incentive to lure Southeast Asia away from China. However, upon historical examination, it is more a means to coerce it away.

Thailand in the 1800’s, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations. Gunboats would eventually turn up off the coast of Siam’s capital and the Kingdom made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. Upon examining these terms imposed via “gunboat policy,” how many of them echo verbatim the terms found among modern “free trade” economic liberalization?

  1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
  2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
  3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
  4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
  5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
  6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.

Compared to modern day examples of “free trade,” and in Iraq’s case, free trade imposed once again by the barrel of a gun, it is nearly impossible to distinguish any difference.

The Economist would enthusiastically enumerate the conditions of “economic liberalization” imposed upon Iraq in the wake of the 2003 US invasion in a piece titled “Let’s all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist’s dream.” They are as follows:

  1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
  2. Full repatriation of profits.
  3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
  4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
  5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
  6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.

Iraq is a perfect modern day example of a nation overrun by brute force and made to concede to an entire restructuring of its economy, giving foreign powers not only access to their natural resources, markets, and population, but uncontested domination over them as well. It was absolute subjugation, both militarily and economically. It was modern day conquest. And it is something Washington seeks to repeat elsewhere, including Southeast Asia.

It’s America’s “Island Dispute” with China, Not Southeast Asia’s

Edens would continue claiming:

However, regional attitudes are changing, largely as a result of the bullish stance China has taken in recent years over territorial disputes. The nations of South-east Asia are increasingly reluctant to accept any threats to their sovereignty in the form of Beijing’s repeated incursions into their exclusive economic zones.

However, it should be noted that the US itself in its own policy papers has noted that these “disputes” are being intentionally provoked by Washington itself, often with ambassadors and envoys repeatedly finding themselves attempting to pressure nations across Southeast Asia to “join” the dispute. The goal of using Southeast Asia as a collective Western-dominated bloc to encircle and contain China with has been stated US policy since the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

 A relatively recent example of this can be seen when US Ambassador to Thailand Glyn Davies berated the Thai government for not “adding its voice” to calls for China to “peacefully resolve conflicts over its appropriation of islands in the South China Sea.” Similar messages and accompanying political and economic threats, have been delivered to other capitals across Southeast Asia.

Edens doesn’t seem to understand that what he is watching is a dispute created by Washington, and a confrontational reaction from across Southeast Asia extorted out of each respective nation by Washington.

Edens mentions the Philippines and their legal dispute with China brought before the Hague. He fails to mention that the legal team representing the Philippines is in fact headed by Washington-based law firm Foley Hoag and that their representative is in fact an American.

The New York Times would reveal this in their report, “In Victory for Philippines, Hague Court to Hear Dispute Over South China Sea,” as well as reveal one of the “incentives” likely being used to encourage the Philippines to continue participating in what is mainly Washington’s confrontation with Beijing:

The Philippines — represented by an American lawyer, Paul Reichler, of the Washington law firm Foley Hoag — contends that it has the right to exploit oil and gas in waters in a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone extending from territory that it claims in the South China Sea.

Dangling the spoils of victory over the government in Manila – in this case, oil – along with less public threats over what will happen if Manila does not cooperate, is likely what has caused the Philippines to squander diplomatic currency with Beijing, money in unnecessary military expenditures, and both time and energy that could be better spent invested in its own future in Asia Pacific, rather than Washington’s.

Nations Not Cooperating Will Suffer Washington’s Wrath 

Edens then turns his attention toward Thailand, claiming:

 In the grip of a military junta since last year, the former Land of Smiles is slowly being turned into some southern version of a North Korea.

One might forgive the London-based writer for thinking so, apparently having never set foot in Thailand before or after the coup, and apparently only reading what he sees in the British papers.

In reality, up to and including the day before the coup, US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra was mass murdering his opponents in the streets with a paramilitary political front known as the “red shirts,” all while building a hereditary dictatorship that saw not only himself as prime minister, but also his brother-in-law and sister as well.

More relevant is the fact that during Shinawatra’s decade plus grip on power, he capitulated to every demand made by Washington, including sending troops to Iraq, hosting the CIA’s abhorrent rendition program, and attempting to illegally pass a US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval.

Since Shinawatra’s ouster from power in 2006, and more recently his sister’s ouster from power in 2014, he and his political dynasty have received unswerving support from the West, seeking to undermine Thailand’s existing political institutions, and reinstall the Shinawatras back into power.

These facts are never mentioned by Edens, nor is it explained how Thailand is being turned into “North Korea” by the military simply for intervening and putting a stop to obvious abuses of both power and human rights, or subsequently arresting members of this political group – a group that has employed terrorism and pursued open, armed insurrection.

Edens is making it clear, intentionally or not, that nations failing to heed the demands of Washington will be isolated and undermined, rhetorically, politically, economically, and even militarily, just as it is doing to China.

China Seeks Collaborators, Washington Seeks Colonies  

Edens claims that Thailand has become a “prime breeding ground for Chinese foreign policy.” In some respects that is true. Thailand seeks a regional partner, not a foreign master. China has not placed any preconditions on Thailand regarding its internal politics in exchange for regional political and military cooperation or joint economic expansion.

In reality, it is likely Southeast Asia collectively prefers this arrangement with Beijing, over the preconditions and client regime status mandated by Washington. What Edens and others in the West attempt to hold up as “evidence” of growing tension in Southeast Asia is more likely the result of backdoor meetings and insinuated threats prodding weaker capitals in the region continuously toward wider confrontation with China. However, none of this is sustainable.

Even as Edens and others hold up evidence that their strategy of tension is working, those on the ground in Southeast Asia can see the waning influence of the West, increasing awareness of the poorly hidden coercion used by the West to cling to the influence it has remaining, and the slow and steady influence of China.

China is a regional neighbor, unlike Washington who attempts to impose its agenda from the other side of the planet. China benefits from a stronger Asia, while Washington sees any rising power or region as a threat that must be controlled, and failing that, divided and destroyed.

It would be wrong to say the rest of Asia is not watching China’s rise with caution. It would also be wrong to say that China does not possess the potential to some day equal or exceed the unwarranted power and influence Washington has wielded in the region. But it would be equally wrong to say that Asia prefers very real Western subjugation to a potential Chinese variety. It seeks a multipolar region where all nations rise together and a balance of power and a respect for national sovereignty is maintained. That is a balance collaboration with the West simply will not yield.

So despite Edens optimistically claiming the “ball” is “squarely in Washington’s court,” the truth is after centuries of the West using and abusing Asia, Asia now is using the West, to raise itself up before pushing it out.

 

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/04/beijing-vs-dc-the-battle-for-southeast-asia/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Beijing vs. Washington: The Battle for Southeast Asia. “Free Trade” and US Economic Hegemony

Beijing vs. Washington: The Battle for Southeast Asia. “Free Trade” and US Economic Hegemony

February 4th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

The Strait Times published an opinion piece by the London-based Rob Edens. Wishfully titled, “South-east Asia fast becoming unfriendly territory for China,” it attempts to portray Southeast Asia as increasingly pivoting West toward Washington, coincidentally just as Washington was “pivoting” East toward Asia.

Edens’ attempts to outline Beijing and Washington’s respective strategies in the region by stating:

On the one hand, China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative, for instance, is focused on physical infrastructure; improving road, rail and air networks overland between neighbouring states as a means to oil the cogs of commerce and bring new customers into China’s fold. On the other hand, the US-led Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) maintains a discourse of freer trade in the Pacific region, opening up new markets overseas by relaxing tariffs and increasing various standards relating to the process of manufacture.

Lost on Edens appears to be the fact that physical infrastructure built beyond China’s borders becomes a long-term asset for those who cooperate in its construction, while Western “free trade” is in all reality, submission to foreign economic hegemony. Many aspects of “free trade” agreements are in fact, stripped verbatim from treaties that defined Colonial Europe and its subjugation of Southeast Asia.

“Free Trade” is Code for Economic Hegemony 

Edens seems to believe that “free trade” is a viable incentive to lure Southeast Asia away from China. However, upon historical examination, it is more a means to coerce it away.

Thailand in the 1800’s, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations. Gunboats would eventually turn up off the coast of Siam’s capital and the Kingdom made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. Upon examining these terms imposed via “gunboat policy,” how many of them echo verbatim the terms found among modern “free trade” economic liberalization?

  1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
  2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
  3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
  4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
  5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
  6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.

Compared to modern day examples of “free trade,” and in Iraq’s case, free trade imposed once again by the barrel of a gun, it is nearly impossible to distinguish any difference.

The Economist would enthusiastically enumerate the conditions of “economic liberalization” imposed upon Iraq in the wake of the 2003 US invasion in a piece titled “Let’s all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist’s dream.” They are as follows:

  1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
  2. Full repatriation of profits.
  3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
  4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
  5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
  6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.

Iraq is a perfect modern day example of a nation overrun by brute force and made to concede to an entire restructuring of its economy, giving foreign powers not only access to their natural resources, markets, and population, but uncontested domination over them as well. It was absolute subjugation, both militarily and economically. It was modern day conquest. And it is something Washington seeks to repeat elsewhere, including Southeast Asia.

It’s America’s “Island Dispute” with China, Not Southeast Asia’s

Edens would continue claiming:

However, regional attitudes are changing, largely as a result of the bullish stance China has taken in recent years over territorial disputes. The nations of South-east Asia are increasingly reluctant to accept any threats to their sovereignty in the form of Beijing’s repeated incursions into their exclusive economic zones.

However, it should be noted that the US itself in its own policy papers has noted that these “disputes” are being intentionally provoked by Washington itself, often with ambassadors and envoys repeatedly finding themselves attempting to pressure nations across Southeast Asia to “join” the dispute. The goal of using Southeast Asia as a collective Western-dominated bloc to encircle and contain China with has been stated US policy since the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

 A relatively recent example of this can be seen when US Ambassador to Thailand Glyn Davies berated the Thai government for not “adding its voice” to calls for China to “peacefully resolve conflicts over its appropriation of islands in the South China Sea.” Similar messages and accompanying political and economic threats, have been delivered to other capitals across Southeast Asia.

Edens doesn’t seem to understand that what he is watching is a dispute created by Washington, and a confrontational reaction from across Southeast Asia extorted out of each respective nation by Washington.

Edens mentions the Philippines and their legal dispute with China brought before the Hague. He fails to mention that the legal team representing the Philippines is in fact headed by Washington-based law firm Foley Hoag and that their representative is in fact an American.

The New York Times would reveal this in their report, “In Victory for Philippines, Hague Court to Hear Dispute Over South China Sea,” as well as reveal one of the “incentives” likely being used to encourage the Philippines to continue participating in what is mainly Washington’s confrontation with Beijing:

The Philippines — represented by an American lawyer, Paul Reichler, of the Washington law firm Foley Hoag — contends that it has the right to exploit oil and gas in waters in a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone extending from territory that it claims in the South China Sea.

Dangling the spoils of victory over the government in Manila – in this case, oil – along with less public threats over what will happen if Manila does not cooperate, is likely what has caused the Philippines to squander diplomatic currency with Beijing, money in unnecessary military expenditures, and both time and energy that could be better spent invested in its own future in Asia Pacific, rather than Washington’s.

Nations Not Cooperating Will Suffer Washington’s Wrath 

Edens then turns his attention toward Thailand, claiming:

 In the grip of a military junta since last year, the former Land of Smiles is slowly being turned into some southern version of a North Korea.

One might forgive the London-based writer for thinking so, apparently having never set foot in Thailand before or after the coup, and apparently only reading what he sees in the British papers.

In reality, up to and including the day before the coup, US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra was mass murdering his opponents in the streets with a paramilitary political front known as the “red shirts,” all while building a hereditary dictatorship that saw not only himself as prime minister, but also his brother-in-law and sister as well.

More relevant is the fact that during Shinawatra’s decade plus grip on power, he capitulated to every demand made by Washington, including sending troops to Iraq, hosting the CIA’s abhorrent rendition program, and attempting to illegally pass a US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval.

Since Shinawatra’s ouster from power in 2006, and more recently his sister’s ouster from power in 2014, he and his political dynasty have received unswerving support from the West, seeking to undermine Thailand’s existing political institutions, and reinstall the Shinawatras back into power.

These facts are never mentioned by Edens, nor is it explained how Thailand is being turned into “North Korea” by the military simply for intervening and putting a stop to obvious abuses of both power and human rights, or subsequently arresting members of this political group – a group that has employed terrorism and pursued open, armed insurrection.

Edens is making it clear, intentionally or not, that nations failing to heed the demands of Washington will be isolated and undermined, rhetorically, politically, economically, and even militarily, just as it is doing to China.

China Seeks Collaborators, Washington Seeks Colonies  

Edens claims that Thailand has become a “prime breeding ground for Chinese foreign policy.” In some respects that is true. Thailand seeks a regional partner, not a foreign master. China has not placed any preconditions on Thailand regarding its internal politics in exchange for regional political and military cooperation or joint economic expansion.

In reality, it is likely Southeast Asia collectively prefers this arrangement with Beijing, over the preconditions and client regime status mandated by Washington. What Edens and others in the West attempt to hold up as “evidence” of growing tension in Southeast Asia is more likely the result of backdoor meetings and insinuated threats prodding weaker capitals in the region continuously toward wider confrontation with China. However, none of this is sustainable.

Even as Edens and others hold up evidence that their strategy of tension is working, those on the ground in Southeast Asia can see the waning influence of the West, increasing awareness of the poorly hidden coercion used by the West to cling to the influence it has remaining, and the slow and steady influence of China.

China is a regional neighbor, unlike Washington who attempts to impose its agenda from the other side of the planet. China benefits from a stronger Asia, while Washington sees any rising power or region as a threat that must be controlled, and failing that, divided and destroyed.

It would be wrong to say the rest of Asia is not watching China’s rise with caution. It would also be wrong to say that China does not possess the potential to some day equal or exceed the unwarranted power and influence Washington has wielded in the region. But it would be equally wrong to say that Asia prefers very real Western subjugation to a potential Chinese variety. It seeks a multipolar region where all nations rise together and a balance of power and a respect for national sovereignty is maintained. That is a balance collaboration with the West simply will not yield.

So despite Edens optimistically claiming the “ball” is “squarely in Washington’s court,” the truth is after centuries of the West using and abusing Asia, Asia now is using the West, to raise itself up before pushing it out.

 

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/04/beijing-vs-dc-the-battle-for-southeast-asia/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Beijing vs. Washington: The Battle for Southeast Asia. “Free Trade” and US Economic Hegemony

Syrian Army Defeats ISIS Forces in Northern Aleppo Province, Breaks Several-Year-Long Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahra Towns

February 4th, 2016 by Fars News Agency

 The Syrian army broke the terrorists’ four-year-long siege of the Shiite-populated towns of Nubl and Al-Zahra in Northern Aleppo province a few minutes ago.

The siege of the strategic towns was removed after four years in an army offensive from the Eastern side of the two towns, while other units of the Syrian army also managed to purge terrorists from 80 percent of the village of Ma’arasa al-Khan.

Reports from Syria said on Wednesday evening that the Shiite residents of Seyede Zeinab region in Damascus, who have been under the terrorists’ continued missile and rocket attacks in the last several years, have poured to the streets to celebrate the army’s groundbreaking victory in Nubl and Al-Zahra. The last rocket attack on Seyede Zeinab region claimed tens of civilian lives only last week.

In addition to the significant advances of the Syrian government forces in the Eastern territories of Aleppo, the Syrian army and its allies were engaged in a heavy battle in the Northern and Northwestern parts of the province to remove the militants’ siege on the two towns.

Also today, the Syrian Army and popular forces, in a rapid joint offensive, surprised the ISIL terrorists and drove them back from their strongholds near two small towns in the Eastern countryside of Aleppo city.

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) continued to advance against the ISIL and won back the small town of As Sin in the Western part of the newly-liberated al-Maksour and the village of al-Uweinat.

Tens of the ISIL combatants were killed or wounded in the pro-government forces’ assault and their military hardware and vehicles were damaged.

Also today, A senior commander of the Fath al-Halab (Conquest of Aleppo) terrorists group fled the battle against the Syrian army in Northern Aleppo and took shelter in Turkey.

“Commander of Fath all-Halab’s operations room Major Yasser Abdel Rahim has escaped to Turkey,” both sides of the war confirmed on Wednesday.

Reports from Aleppo province said earlier today that militant groups are evacuating all villages and areas near the towns of Nubl and al-Zahra as the Syrian army, Hezbollah and popular forces continue to gain ground in nearby areas.

Field sources said the Syrian army and its allies’ victories in the last 72 hours have forced the terrorist groups, including Nouriddeen al-Zinki movement (al-Nusra affiliated) to withdraw from their positions near the towns of Nubl and al-Zahra to evade more casualties.

Another report said on Tuesday that hundreds of Takfiri terrorists were trying to cross the border to Turkey after losing vast grounds and dozens of their friends in the Syrian army’s massive operations in Northern Aleppo province.

The terrorists have sustained heavy losses as the Syrian army is hunting them down in the Northern part of Aleppo province.

Tens of terrorists have been killed and dozens more have been injured in heavy clashes with the Syrian troops in Northern Aleppo in the past three days as the army conducted massive assaults to win back more villages and towns in the region.

Reports said on Tuesday large groups of militants were fleeing their strongholds in different areas of Northern Aleppo province as the Syrian army announced that it has cut off one of the main supply routes of the militants in the Southern part of Ratyan and al-Zahra in Northwest of the province and laid siege on terrorists in one town and several villages.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Army Defeats ISIS Forces in Northern Aleppo Province, Breaks Several-Year-Long Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahra Towns

Zika Virus Intrauterine Infection Causes Fetal Brain Abnormality and Microcephaly: Tip of the Iceberg?

February 4th, 2016 by A. S. Oliveira Melo

We bring to the attention of Global Research readers the Abstract of an important scientific study pertaining to the Zika virus outbreak.

An unexpected upsurge in diagnosis of fetal and pediatric microcephaly has been reported in the Brazilian press recently. Cases have been diagnosed in nine Brazilian states so far. By 28 November 2015, 646 cases had been reported in Pernambuco state alone. Although reports have circulated regarding the declaration of a state of national health emergency, there is no information on the imaging and clinical findings of affected cases. Authorities are considering different theories behind the ‘microcephaly outbreak’, including a possible association with the emergence of Zika virus disease within the region, the first case of which was detected in May 2015[1].

Zika virus is a mosquito-borne disease closely related to yellow fever, dengue, West Nile and Japanese encephalitis viruses[2]. It was first identified in 1947 in the Zika Valley in Uganda and causes a mild disease with fever, erythema and arthralgia. Interestingly, vertical transmission to the fetus has not been reported previously, although two cases of perinatal transmission, occurring around the time of delivery and causing mild disease in the newborns, have been described[3].

We have examined recently two pregnant women from the state of Paraiba who were diagnosed with fetal microcephaly and were considered part of the ‘microcephaly cluster’ as both women suffered from symptoms related to Zika virus infection. Although both patients had negative blood results for Zika virus, amniocentesis and subsequent quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction[4], performed after ultrasound diagnosis of fetal microcephaly and analyzed at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was positive for Zika virus in both patients, most likely representing the first diagnoses of intrauterine transmission of the virus. The sequencing analysis identified in both cases a genotype of Asian origin.

In Case 1, fetal ultrasound examination was performed at 30.1 weeks’ gestation. Head circumference (HC) was 246 mm (2.6 SD below expected value) and weight was estimated as 1179 g (21st percentile). Abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL) and transcranial Doppler were normal for gestational age as was the width of the lateral ventricles. Anomalies were limited to the brain and included brain atrophy with coarse calcifications involving the white matter of the frontal lobes, including the caudate, lentostriatal vessels and cerebellum. Corpus callosal and vermian dysgenesis and enlarged cisterna magna were observed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Case 1: (a) Transabdominal axial ultrasound image shows cerebral calcifications with failure of visualization of a normal vermis (large arrow). Calcifications are also present in the brain parenchyma (small arrow). (b) Transvaginal sagittal image shows dysgenesis of the corpus callosum (small arrow) and vermis (large arrow). (c) Coronal plane shows a wide interhemispheric fissure (large arrow) due to brain atrophy and bilateral parenchymatic coarse calcifications (small arrows). (d) Calcifications are visible in this more posterior coronal view and can be seen to involve the caudate (arrows).

In Case 2, fetal ultrasound examination was performed at 29.2 weeks’ gestation. HC was 229 mm (3.1 SD below expected value) and estimated fetal weight was 1018 g (19th percentile). AC was below the 3rd percentile but FL was normal. The cerebral hemispheres were markedly asymmetric with severe unilateral ventriculomegaly, displacement of the midline, thinning of the parenchyma on the dilated side, failure to visualize the corpus callosum and almost complete disappearance or failure to develop the thalami. The pons and brainstem were thin and continuous with a non-homogeneous small mass at the position of the basal ganglia. Brain calcifications were more subtle than in Case 1 and located around the lateral ventricles and fourth ventricle. Both eyes had cataracts and intraocular calcifications, and one eye was smaller than the other (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Case 2: (a) Anterior coronal view shows severe asymmetric ventriculomegaly with cystic formation (arrow). (b) Posterior horn of the lateral ventricle (LV) in coronal view is dilated. Note calcifications in the fourth ventricle (arrows). (c) The thalamus is absent (arrow) and the brainstem and pons are thin and difficult to visualize (sagittal view). (d) Axial view shows calcifications in both eyes (arrows). Note that the proximal eye is very small and lacks normal anatomic landmarks.

In the meantime, in Paraiba state, six children diagnosed with Zika virus were born to mothers who were apparently symptomatic during pregnancy, all of them with neonatal HC below the 10th percentile. Fetal neurosonograms showed two cases with cerebellar involvement and three with brain calcifications. One had severe arthrogryposis.

Intrauterine infections affecting the brain are relatively rare; cytomegalovirus (CMV), toxoplasmosis, herpes virus, syphilis and rubella are well known vectors of fetal disease. Among the Flaviviruses there have been only isolated reports linking West Nile encephalitis virus to fetal brain insults[5].

The presence of calcifications was suggestive of an intrauterine infection but severe damage of the cerebellum, brainstem and thalami is rarely associated with intrauterine infection. Both cases showed some similarities to CMV cases but with a more severe and destructive pattern and they lacked the nodules characteristic of toxoplasmosis. Interestingly, the reported case of fetal West Nile virus infection has similar characteristics[5].

It is difficult to explain why there have been no fetal cases of Zika virus infection reported until now but this may be due to the underreporting of cases, possible early acquisition of immunity in endemic areas or due to the rarity of the disease until now. As genomic changes in the virus have been reported[6], the possibility of a new, more virulent, strain needs to be considered. Until more cases are diagnosed and histopathological proof is obtained, the possibility of other etiologies cannot be ruled out.

As with other intrauterine infections, it is possible that the reported cases of microcephaly represent only the more severely affected children and that newborns with less severe disease, affecting not only the brain but also other organs, have not yet been diagnosed.

If patients diagnosed in other states are found to be seropositive for Zika virus, this represents a severe health threat that needs to be controlled expeditiously. The Brazilian authorities reacted rapidly by declaring a state of national health emergency. As there is no known medical treatment for this disease, a serious attempt will be needed to eradicate the mosquito and prevent the spread of the disease to other Brazilian states and across the border[7].

To Read complete study click here

References

  • 1 Campos GS, Bandeira AC, Sardi SI. Zika Virus Outbreak, Bahia, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 2015; 21: 1885–1886.

  • 2 Ioos S, Mallet HP, Leparc Goffart I, Gauthier V, Cardoso T, Herida M. Current Zika virus epidemiology and recent epidemics.Medecine et maladies infectieuses 2014; 44: 302–307.
  • 3 Besnard M, Lastere S, Teissier A, Cao-Lormeau V, Musso D. Evidence of perinatal transmission of Zika virus, French Polynesia, December 2013 and February 2014. Euro Surveill 2014; 19.
  • 4 Lanciotti RS, Kosoy OL, Laven JJ, Velez JO, Lambert AJ, Johnson AJ, Stanfield SM, Duffy MR. Genetic and serologic properties of Zika virus associated with an epidemic, Yap State, Micronesia, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis 2008; 8: 1232–1239.
  • 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Intrauterine West Nile virus infection–New York, 2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002; 51: 1135–1136.
  • 6 Faye O, Freire CC, Iamarino A, Faye O, de Oliveira JV, Diallo M, Zanotto PM, Sall AA. Molecular evolution of Zika virus during its emergence in the 20(th) century. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2014; 8: e2636.
  • 7 Goenaga S, Kenney JL, Duggal NK, Delorey M, Ebel GD, Zhang B, Levis SC, Enria DA, Brault AC. Potential for Co-Infection of a Mosquito-Specific Flavivirus, Nhumirim Virus, to Block West Nile Virus Transmission in Mosquitoes. Viruses 2015; 7: 5801–5812.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Zika Virus Intrauterine Infection Causes Fetal Brain Abnormality and Microcephaly: Tip of the Iceberg?

Polarized Poland: The Identity Crisis Goes International

February 4th, 2016 by Andrew Korybko

The nationwide protests that have rocked Poland over the past couple of months have been completely misrepresented in the international media, even among outlets that are editorially sympathetic to one side or the other.

The outside understanding is that this is a stereotypical struggle between the government and the opposition, represented in this case by the right and left wings, respectively. This is factually true on the surface of things, and that misleadingly makes Poland’s problems seem like nothing out of the ordinary when placed in a global perspective. Those that proceed from the superficial starting point of assessing the Polish protests as just another incident of the aforementioned dichotomies so common all across the world nowadays are completely missing the point.

Whether Poles themselves are consciously aware of it or not, their country is experiencing one of its greatest-ever identity crises, the resolution of which will determine Poland’s future trajectory for decades to come, although to the US’ ultimate strategic benefit in either case.

PiS Makes History

Prior to diving into the identity-specific aspects of Poland’s present troubles, it should first be reminded that the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) was the first since 1989 to win a parliamentary majority, and it also controls the country’s presidency and premiership. Whether one supports PiS’ platform or not, it’s a fact that no party has ever been more democratically popular in Poland’s post-Cold War history than they have at this current moment. It’s also worthy to mention that Polish voters were well aware in advance that voting for PiS would essentially be signaling their support for the party’s leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and that he would become the most powerful, albeit unelected, person in the country if his party won, as it historically did by a huge margin. That being said, for better or for worse, PiS represents the aspirations of the majority of the Polish people, and this fact needs to be understood before moving further with the analysis.

Poland’s Number One Issue: The EU

Kaczynski, the “Gray Cardinal” that’s really running Poland nowadays, has a vision for Poland that’s dramatically at odds with that of the now-oppositionist Civic Platform (PO), of whom Donald Tusk is the most notable former representative. PiS is known to represent what are popularly labeled “Eurosceptics”, but which the author less scurrilously terms “EuroCautionaries”, while PO is gung-ho about full-scale EU-“integration”. Both parties, it must be said, are anti-Russian and pro-American, with PiS being the more radical of the two. Therefore, the apple of discord between them comes down to their relationship with the EU, seeing as how the aforementioned positions vis-à-vis Russia and the US are agreed to in principle but differ only in intensity. Although something similar can be said of their stances towards Brussels, it will soon be revealed that the divide between them on this pressing issue is not only much more pronounced, but given the distrustful inter-Union atmosphere that’s presently prevailing, has the ability to impact much more significantly on continental geopolitics than their similarly aligned attitudes towards Russia and the US.

Consolidating EuroCautionary Control

Not only that, but the issue of PiS and PO’s largely differing and equally radical positions concerning the EU is the only one of the aforementioned three which most strongly affects Poland’s domestic and international situation, thus making it a magnet for civic activism and voter turnout. As was witnessed during the latest elections, the Polish people overwhelmingly support the national vision articulated by PiS, so much so that they handed them an historically unprecedented governing majority. In accordance with their popular mandate, PiS sought to consolidate its position over the country and expand its reach to the point of being able to irreversibly transform it into the type of state that it and its supporters envision. For these reasons, they initiated the controversial judicial and media reforms, an obvious power grab over the existing establishment, albeit one which they assumed the majority of the population would support. Concerning the judiciary, PiS proposed that the most contentious cases in the country be decided by a 13/15 supermajority in the Constitutional Court (whereas before it had been 9/15), whereas for the media, they stipulated that senior figures in publicly financed radio and television stations were to be appointed or fired by the Treasury Minister from now on.

The Long Haul

The reason that these moves have elicited such an outcry is that the opposition knows that they essentially give PiS a carte blanche to reshape Polish society as they see fit. It’s highly unlikely that the Constitutional Court would ever reach the 13/15 supermajority that would be needed to reverse whatever highly contentious actions PiS puts into place, such as the media reform legislation. This particular power grab for the nation’s publicly funded information platforms is predicated on granting PiS the means to further institutionalize its vision into the mindset of average Poles, clearly indicating that it has a long-term plan for the country’s future. Recalling that PiS’ major political difference with PO comes down to its EuroCautionary ideology, it can logically be inferred that the new ruling authorities want to precondition more of the mases into accepting that Warsaw will become relatively more sovereign from the centralized decision making that’s being dictated by Brussels. PiS doesn’t want to abandon the EU project by any measure, but what it wants to do is employ Poland’s economic and demographic potential (mixed with its geostrategic position) as leverage in modifying the existing balance of power within the EU.

“Orbanization” Expands

For the most part, this is a larger-scale continuation of what Viktor Orban has been endeavoring to achieve, except that Poland actually has the means to make a difference in the EU via its considerably more impressive ‘blackmail’ factors. For all of its leader’s rhetoric, Hungary isn’t in a position to enact concessions from Brussels on any issue other than the “refugee”/migrant one, which in any case is due less to the country’s overall political leverage and more to its happenstance geography along the ‘new arrivals’’ most commonly traversed access routes. What PiS’ unparalleled victory has demonstrated is that EuroCautionary ideology has gained popular appeal and electoral acceptance in a much larger and more politically significant state than Hungary, signifying that the movement might finally be able to enact tangible changes in EU-wide policy for the first time since its inception.

From the vantage point of the stereotypical Brussels bureaucrat, “Orbanism” is a subversive ideology that’s proven to be much more geographically inclusive than its detractors had initially thought. Early critics naively assumed that the blending of EuroCautionary policies under a centralizing leadership (panned as an “illiberal democracy”) was specific to Hungary due to the country’s historic and cultural peculiarities, but Poland’s elections proved that such a conception was totally wrong. As Slovakia gears up for parliamentary elections on 5 March, the unspoken fear is that incumbent Prime Minister Robert Fico’s EuroCautionary Smer-SD party will smash the polls and represent the next frontier for “Orbanism”, thus creating a contiguous bloc of reform-minded states smack dab in the heart of EU. Altogether, this grouping would be able to assert considerable influence and pressure on Brussels, thus raising the prospect that their shared vision for Europe could become a partial reality, at least in the central part of the continent.

The Other Option

Resurrecting the historic Polish-Hungarian friendship in the present geopolitical environment would be a major step forward in achieving Kaczynski’s vision, but it’s not the only path that Poland has recently pursued. PO, which had previously run the country for the past 8 years, worked hard to streamline the state’s subservient position to Brussels-based bureaucracy, believing that Poland’s future rested in being a ‘loyal’ ‘European’ state. One of the main reasons that now-opposition PO is protesting against the current government is because they want to defend the achievements that they made during their prior tenure, knowing how badly and quickly PiS wants to reverse them. Don’t forget that PiS does not want to destroy the EU, but rather, that it and other EuroCautionary “Orbanist” parties sincerely believe that the organization’s existing framework excruciatingly hinders its general effectiveness and engenders a plethora of unnecessary problems. Their policy is to reform the EU from within, and this undoubtedly presents an existential threat to the establishment pro-EU parties like PO, which don’t see much wrong with the present arrangement and would prefer for it to remain largely intact. For a variety of reasons, this attitude is not shared by the majority of the electorate in Hungary, Poland, and perhaps soon, in Slovakia and elsewhere in the region.

Control The Information, Control The Identity

Being aware of the dramatically separate visions that PiS and PO have for Poland’s relationship with the EU, one can more easily come to grips with why the government’s media reforms are so important in terms of the larger picture. Both sides know how influential of a role the media plays in shaping national identity, and up until PiS’ recent victory, the state information organs had been used to promote a radical pro-EU agenda. It clearly didn’t’ succeed as well as the ruling PO authorities would have hoped for it to, hence their stunning loss in the latest elections, but that doesn’t erase the fact that such instruments can be critically effective if applied in the proper way. What PiS wants to do is usurp total control over these bodies and install likeminded ideological adherents who would reverse the pro-EU broadcasting on these platforms and work towards promoting EuroCautionary ideals.

PO and its establishment EU allies know that this represents the death knell of their mission in Poland, and it’s for this reason why they’re so fiercely protesting against it. The Soros Foundation also agrees, which is why it’s been so actively involved in organizing some of the protests as well. The reason that so many people have turned out into the streets is because there’s still a significant minority of the populace that firmly believes that the present EU-Polish relationship should be retained without adjustments. They’re under the purposefully misguided impression supported by PO, its establishment EU allies including Germany (which many Poles still resent), and the Soros Foundation that PiS wants to take Poland completely out of the EU, which isn’t the case at all, but makes for a convenient fear mongering campaign that facilitates street action. Without control over the government’s media platforms, PO and their ilk believe that they won’t stand any foreseeable chance for a comeback and that they’d all thus be forced to accept PiS’ EuroCautionary policies and leadership over the international “Orbanist” movement, as Kaczynski would then have the economic and demographic resources to affect much more change in the EU than Orban and Hungary themselves could ever conceivably carry out.

There are of course other ways to disseminate an ideology throughout a state than using publicly financed internal media platforms like the ones that PiS wants to control, but considering that the ruling government has also implemented a judicial reform that all but nullifies the possibility that it will ever be found to be in breach of the constitution, it’s predicted that they’ll take other “illiberal” sovereignty-supporting measures as well. It’s not known whether this would ever extend into a Polonized version of Russia’s NGO legislation, but realistically speaking, Warsaw could easily call upon the phantom of Russophobia to justify such measures, even if they’re actually in fact aimed against Brussels or Berlin. They wouldn’t, however, target US-controlled NGOs because Washington is actually a firm proponent of the present Polish government, notwithstanding that it went through the face-saving motion of voicing ‘concern’ about recent developments in the country. This will be discussed soon enough, but to conclude the point being made, the most stable lever of influence that pro-EU advocates can employ in desperately trying to stave off their growing irrelevancy in Poland is to retain control over the state’s publicly financed media platforms, applying agitprop and false “dictatorship” fear mongering in order to enact sub-Color Revolutionary pressure in blackmailing the EuroCautionary government.

Impassioned Poles

Prior to looking at the US’ strategic interests in this situation, it’s relevant to offer some words about why Poles are so overly impassioned about this issue in the first place. As was initially mentioned, the cusp of the crisis comes down to Poland’s identity, whether as a Brussels-dominated “European” state (PO) or a semi-sovereign traditionally “Polish” one (PiS). The EU elites’ unofficial ideology is Cultural Marxism, which to briefly summarize as per its relevancy to the research, essentially holds that traditional identities are unnecessary obstacles to ‘integration’ and should be steamrolled over in place of an amorphous ‘compromise’ identity that culls the most blasé elements from each of its constituencies.

As can be imagined, this attitude is interpreted as a major threat to a country that’s 98% ethnically and religiously homogenous and has a rigidly defined historical narrative, but the EU wasn’t forthcoming in its true intentions and instead obscured them through the distracting and much more appealing veneer of economic growth and unrestricted freedom of interstate movement. Poles were ultra-receptive to these ideas because they had been preconditioned by their diaspora community into believing that the communist period stifled their development. They not only wanted to enjoy the expected benefits of what they believed would be no-strings-attached externally funded development for their homeland, but they also wanted the ability to freely work in stronger nearby economies, either with the intent of permanently living there or saving money to send back as remittances and/or reinvest in starting a Polish business one day. Because the EU’s promises perfectly correlated with the ambitions and expectations that most of the Polish population held dear after 1989, many people either overlooked or didn’t even notice the socio-political agenda that the Cultural Marxist EU elite were pushing on their country.

In fact, large segments of the population had their culturally embedded suspicions soothed into submission by the EU’s tantalizing dreams of foreign money and hassle-free movement, with the West and its NGO network wildly succeeding in convincing many Poles that post-modern “Europeanization” is much more preferable (and trendy) than traditional “Polonization”. This explains the popularity of PO and the existence of many pro-EU Poles, which it must be underscored are largely concentrated among the youth and young adult demographics. These individuals sincerely took on the identity of “Europeans”, while the rest of the country remained “Poles”, or at the very least, insincerely adapted select aspects of “Europeanization” while still retaining certain elements of “Polishness” that would later return to the forefront of their identity. The Great Recession that began in 2008 dispelled many of the false dreams that the EU had promised to the Poles, and certain variables came together to create a situation where “Polishness” became fashionable again, both in the cultural and political (PiS) sense. From that point onwards, an acute self-awareness spread over Polish society, whereby people began to notice there were two types of Poles – those who embraced European norms and those who preserved their traditional Polish identity. No matter which side of the aisle one fell, each group had a deeply rooted conception of what their identity was and the trajectory that they envisioned their country should proceed along.

At this moment it’s timely to touch upon Poles’ hyper-sensitivity towards any issues whatsoever dealing with their identity, especially when it’s perceived that (and/or manufactured to seem like) their said identity is under threat by some external force. Owing to their subjective and nationalist-inspired historical narrative, just about all Poles are extremely touchy when it comes to their self-conception and that of their country, indicating a centuries-rooted inferiority complex. No matter how the individual chooses to identity, they are mostly incapable of holding such beliefs in moderation and typically go to obsessive extremes in their manifestation. When the majority of society implicitly agrees on a said precept of their collective identity (e.g. nationalist anti-communism during the 1980s), then the entire country musters it’s combined energy to promote that given ideal, but when there’s a deep and externally influenced rift over what this should be (e.g. Europeanization vs. Polonization, especially in the identity-confusing post-Cold War years), that’s when serious cracks begin to emerge in the country’s superficial cohesiveness and historically outward-directed tensions begin to redirect themselves towards domestic targets. The main factor in this, it should be repeated, is Poles’ centuries-established inferiority complex in obsessing over their identities, and this unique cultural trait is the driving factor in the present political crisis.

A Family Feud Taken Too Far

Returning to the present, Poles are once more overreacting about their identity, albeit this time mostly against one another as opposed to some tangible foreign ‘adversary’. The 2015 elections dealt a crushing defeat to PO and all that it stands for, yet the unsportsmanlike losers didn’t want to accept what had happened and instead sought to spoil the country’s stability for everyone. Undoubtedly, they were likely given advance assurances by their EU establishment partners that they’d enjoy full support in their forthcoming campaign, reassured by the fact that their former party leader Donald Tusk is now President of the European Council. What should have otherwise been a solely civil affair quickly grew to international proportions as Brussels threw its weight behind the protesters and international NGOs also volunteered their services. PiS, on the other hand, sought the public approval of Orban, the man who has now become their ideological “role model/predecessor”, having been able to rhetorically stand up to Brussels during the interim period between Lech Kaczynski’s 2005-2010 PiS Presidency and his brother Jaroslaw’s “Gray Cardinal” leadership over the present one. Had it not been for these two diverging international factors – PO running to Brussels and PiS seeking out Orban in response – then it’s unlikely that the Polish protests would have garnered much attention.

The Quota Catalyst

The Poles’ general penchant for drama and stereotypical overreaction about anything concerning their identity politics, especially when it’s suspected that there may be a foreign element at play (in this case, perceived Brussels- and Berlin-imposed “Europeanization” and Hungarian-influenced “Orbanization-Polonization”), turned an otherwise unremarkable domestic spat into a continental-wide scandal. The entire episode unwittingly increased the polarization between the Integrationist and EuroCautionary camps, already sky-high over the EU’s proposed plan to enforce mandatory refugee/economic migrant quotas for each of the member states. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that PiS performed so well during the October elections precisely because of its opposition to this policy, which came to occupy untold heights in the Polish consciousness due to the country’s almost completely homogenous nature. The mandatory relocation of unknown numbers of civilizationally dissimilar individuals to Polish soil was enough to turn on-the-fence “Europeans” into firm proponents of PiS’ “Polonization”, hence the trouncing that PO later received.

PiS has been very successful in convincing the electorate that only they are capable of safeguarding Polish identity as it is traditionally understood in socio-cultural terms, standing in start opposition to the European-emulating PO. Seeing how many refugees and economic migrants EU-leader Germany has openly welcomed, voters were undoubtedly fearful that PO would have followed a similar policy. This sentiment is so strong that even PiS supporters who might feel uncomfortable with their party’s judicial and media power grabs are still largely standing by the newly elected government’s side, having concluded that it’s better to sacrifice a few ‘democratic principles’ than to sell out the entire country’s identity (as they perceive it) in accepting potentially tens of thousands of North African and Middle Eastern refugees and economic migrants. It can conclusively be observed that even though the elections are over, the refugee/economic migrant issue still hangs heavily over the heads of many Poles, which to emphasize the underlying theme once more, is because this relates to the identity obsession that Polish people uniquely embody.

The American Agenda

What’s happening in Poland isn’t inconsequential to American strategists, and they actually have a preferred outcome in mind that would most assuredly promote their unipolar objectives. Truth being said, the US wins in either case, no matter whether the “Europeanized” PO and its supporters topple the government (which is unlikely) or blackmail it into concessions, or if PiS succeeds in its “Orbanization-Polonization” vision. To explain how each of these scenarios benefits the US, it’s necessary to call to mind how both parties are favorable to the US and against Russia, albeit to differing intensities. If PO were to usurp power somehow, then it wouldn’t affect American strategic objectives in any shape or manner, and so long as the EU as a whole remains firmly in the US’ grasp, then Washington has nothing to worry about. However, in the event that Russia and/or China were to make significant inroads in continental geopolitics via their multipolar infrastructure projects (Balkan Stream, Nord Stream II, and the Balkan Silk Road) and diplomacy (the Normandy Four framework excluding the US, air space coordination over Syria, etc.), then the US would be scrambling for a backup plan to maintain its unipolarity there.

This possible course of events helps explain why PiS and Kaczynski’s “Polonization” are so strategically attractive to the US. First off, faux-Resistance ideologies such as “Orbanism” misleadingly give off the impression of being anti-establishment with their loud pro-sovereignty rhetoric and limited actions, despite hypocritically supporting their given countries’ EU and NATO memberships. Structurally speaking, their existence and wild popularity helps to divert legitimate resistance to both of these institutions by presenting what is conventionally perceived as a form of “in-system opposition” that never structurally threatens the US’ unipolar status quo. If anything, it allows the US to stay ahead of the curve by hijacking the trajectory of emerging political trends and manipulating them in the direction where they can best be used to serve unipolarity, if not outright becoming future vanguards on its behalf.

On the geopolitical front, the US is already supporting the nascent creation of the Intermarum “cordon sanitaire” between Russia and a potentially one day pragmatic Germany and France, and expanding Poland’s Neo-Commonwealth into contiguous contact with Hungary’s St. Stephen’s Space via the shared satellite state of Slovakia would be a major win for the American “Lead From Behind” strategy. PiS is diehard pro-American, so it would use the leadership position that it would undoubtedly exert over the new geopolitical construction to invite as much of a strategic (e.g. “missile defense”) and physical US military presence as possible in order to maximize the collective anti-Russian capability of the new bloc. A self-confident and “Polish” identity-espousing Warsaw would essentially be anti-Russian in its core vision (barring some unforeseen and majorly radical change of events), so it would naturally gravitate towards actualizing the Intermarum ‘containment’ strategy that the US is pushing it towards. Without the seemingly pressing domestic imperatives most fully embodied by PiS’ overall vision, Poland is not as likely to move so rapidly in fulfilling its role as the geopolitical junction point linking together the Viking Bloc, St. Stephen’s Space, and the Black Sea Bloc, and without the frontline ‘glue’ that Poland provides through its Neo-Commonwealth, the overall strategy would be much less cohesive and effective (such as under a “Europeanized” PO leadership).

Concluding Thoughts

The core of Poland’s political conflict is over which trajectory the country and its people should ultimately continue along. The “Europeanized” PO opposition party and its foreign state (i.e. German) and non-state (Soros) supporters want to protect the institutionalized advances that Donald Tusk had made during his 8-year premiership, even going as far as provoking dangerous sub-Color Revolution destabilizations to do so (and possibly even launching an all-out one in the near future). On the other hand, the “Polonized” PiS ruling party wants to “Orbanize” its power and then use its concentrated leadership apparatus to push forward its EuroCautionary reforms within the EU. No matter who comes out on top in this struggle (with PiS having a very high likelihood of remaining in power), it’s useful to remember that the US still wins in some way or another since neither party advocates a rejection of Euro-Atlanticism.

Both of the feuding sides are overdramatically impassionate about their respective positions due to the deep-seated inferiority complex prevalent in Polish society, whereby the population is hyper-sensitive to any sorts of issues even remotely perceived as affecting their identity, whether it be as “Europeanized” or “Polonized” Poles. This feeling is heightened even further by the suspicions that each side’s supporters level against the other, namely that PO is a pro-EU German-controlled front and that PiS has been disproportionately influenced by Hungary’s “illiberal democratic” ideology of “Orbanization”. What in any other context would have remained a ‘family affair’ inside of Polish society has exploded as a major issue in the EU’s continental affairs, driven to this point because of PO’s unsportsmanlike behavior after being trounced at the latest polls and its solicitation of outside support in trying to usurp power.

At the present moment, it doesn’t seem likely that PO will succeed in its goals to overthrow the government or blackmail it to the point of submission, but at the same time, it has regularly ended up bringing thousands of people to the street all across the country, demonstrating that there’s definitely a groundswell of domestic support for its anti-government agitation. Comparatively, however, PiS did manage to win an unprecedented election that handed it full control of all levels of government, from the parliament to the presidency to the premiership, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski finally reaching the position where he can control the entire state by proxy. The controversial judicial and media reform actions were undertaken precisely as a form of institutionalizing PiS’ power over all members of society, and it’s for the existential threat that this poses to PO’s “Europeanization” ideology that it and its supporters have commenced their destabilization program.

The protests likely won’t end anytime soon, but nor will they reach an uncontrollable level unless there’s a serious forthcoming scandal or violent (false-flag?) provocation, meaning that anti-government street action might become the ‘new normal’ in Poland just as it’s been in Spain, Portugal, and Greece for the past couple of years. Either way, the US isn’t too concerned about what happens in Poland right now, since at the rate that everything’s going, it’ll be the ultimate strategic winner no matter what.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Polarized Poland: The Identity Crisis Goes International

European Office Revokes Monsanto’s False Patent for GM Melons

February 4th, 2016 by Christina Sarich

France, Germany, and Spain filed a suit against Monsanto last year because the company tried to patent a non-GM tomato that was resistant to a common fungal disease (EP1812575). Now, the European Patent Office (EPO) is revoking another patent Monsanto has held on non-GM melons.

Though the company claims to have developed a melon (EP1962578) that is resistant to plant viruses, the fruit has these qualities naturally, and has been detected in Indian melons for centuries.

The patent was granted previously by the European Patent Office (EPO) even though the EU patent law does not allow patents on plant varieties and processes for conventional breeding.

Many plants are bred without genetic engineering to have qualities that make them resistant to disease, and Mother Nature equips many varieties with healthy immune systems that fend very well for themselves when plants are given healthy, organic soil. In fact, the better the soil, the more robust a plant usually is at fighting diseases and pests.

International Year of Soils says:

“Soil organic matter – the product of on-site biological decomposition – affects the chemical and physical properties of the soil and its overall health. Its composition and breakdown rate affect: the soil structure and porosity; the water infiltration rate and moisture holding capacity of soils; the diversity and biological activity of soil organisms; and plant nutrient availability.”

Monsanto has continually tried to take over seed (food) production, throughout the world, even buying up heirloom seed companies to control the food supply. But many countries have seen through their tactics and refuse to plant GM food. Russia and Bhutan are good examples. Vladimir Putin says that Russia will be the world’s number one exporter of organic, non-GM food.

The Indian government supported the opposition from ‘No Patents on Seeds,’ which asked for Monsanto’s melon patent to be revoked.  The government also sent a letter requesting the patent to be revoked.

The letter was sent to the EPO just one day before the hearing, explaining that Monsanto’s patent on a non-GM melon was an act of biopiracy – violating Indian law and international treaties.

Christoph Then from the international coalition of ‘No Patents on Seeds,’ said:

“The patent was based on essentially biological processes for breeding and claimed plant varieties. This was a clear violation of European patent law. It is a huge success that the patent has been revoked! Nevertheless, the general problem cannot be resolved simply by filing oppositions at the EPO. Politicians need to make sure that laws are applied properly and prohibitions are no longer ignored.”

The opposition was filed by Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft (Germany), Bund Naturschutz in Bayern (Germany), Berne Declaration (Switzerland), Gesellschaft für Ökologische Forschung (Germany), Greenpeace (Germany), No Patents on Life! (Germany), Verband Katholisches Landvolk (Germany) and Foundation for Future Farming.

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on European Office Revokes Monsanto’s False Patent for GM Melons

China’s Path into Africa Blocked

February 4th, 2016 by Prof. Patrick Bond

On Dec. 4-5, Chinese leaders visited Johannesburg’s central business district to pledge $60 billion to help industrialise the African continent. More than 40 African heads of state were in attendance for the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (Focac).

To me, Focac’s most impressive feature was the hard-sell by Beijing’s local allies. In an unprecedented display of bias, the English-language daily newspaper (the Independent group) considered the most important in South Africa’s four largest cities – Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria – ran non-stop, mind-numbingly positive “sunshine journalism.”

The Independent chain’s most intelligent reporters and commentators were flummoxed by a harsh reality they dared not mention: China has amplified African under-development over the past third of a century.

To illustrate, consider enthusiastic Sunday Independent claims by a prominent international relations expert, University of the Witwatersrand Professor Garth Shelton: “China’s ongoing engagement with Africa is a major success story and constitutes a positive example of co-operative interdependence.”

The evidence is useful to consider because Shelton is not a state spin-doctor; he is a leading scholar whose lines of argument are hegemonic, e.g. “Commodity exports to China provide a foundation for economic growth across the African continent.”

But from 2002-11, this was true only if ‘growth’ is measured simply as rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP), uncorrected for depletion of non-renewable resources (what is termed ‘Natural Capital’, drawn down). If that correction is made, Africa’s wealth drains out rapidly, not to mention other ‘Resource Curses’: ecological wreckage, social displacement in mining areas, systemic corruption and serious economic distortions.

Not according to Shelton: “Increased African raw material exports to China significantly benefit national economies.” No, even the World Bank admitted in its 2014 Little Green Data Book that once we apply Natural Capital accounting, 88 percent of Sub-Saharan African countries are net losers from mineral and petroleum exports.

Moreover, the price cycle has since turned, with most commodity exports worth less than half their 2011 peak value. Having overproduced, China has even redirected its own production of semi-processed commodities back to African countries that were formerly net suppliers. South Africa’s largest steel factory (Arcelor Mittal, owned by an Indian) spent 2015 closing five foundries and the second largest (Evraz Highveld, owned by a Russian) declared a form of bankruptcy.

South Africa’s trade and industry minister (Rob Davies, a Communist Party leader) was compelled to impose a 10 percent price surcharge, notwithstanding the SA currency’s crash from R6/$ in 2011 to R14.5/$ today. Frustrated Nigerian steel manufacturers have a similar story.

Such frenetic overproduction at the world scale is one of the main reasons the Focac promise of Africa’s next-wave economic growth – industrialization – is a pipe dream. The first waves of cheap Chinese imports began a third of a century ago, as structural adjustment policies shrunk Africa’s disposable income, decimating local clothing, textiles, footwear, appliances and electronics industries.

Moreover, Chinese manufacturers’ demand for oil, gas and coal is the main factor – along with irresponsibility by the EU, the US, India and other consumers of African fossil fuels – behind climate change. When the leaders of China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US signed the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009 (as an undemocratic side-deal to the UN negotiations then underway), they replaced the Kyoto Protocol’s binding provisions with voluntary pledges. This set the stage for the Paris deal now coming to fruition, with its 3+ degree pledges assuring runaway climate change. Copenhagen fused sub-imperial BRICS countries (minus Russia) with.

Shelton expresses faith that “As the Chinese middle class expands, the range of export opportunities to China will become enormous.” But that class has a profound problem: over-indebtedness and with it, the inability to convert real estate collateral to cash. The middle-class strategy of property speculation has come unstuck what with massive overbuilding of residential real estate, followed by a 20 percent crash in 2014-15, a problem far worse in the provincial cities. The ratio of real estate to GDP (23 percent) in China is three times higher today than the US at its most property-bubbly in 2007.

In any case it is most unlikely African countries can produce consumables for the middle class that are of the bulk volume to achieve economies of scale and hence lower prices. And today there is a world glut not only in over-supplied raw materials from Africa, e.g. coal, for which Chinese import demand is 120 million tonnes/year for the foreseeable future after a peak of 150 million tonnes in 2013 (a 20 percent crash). More generally, world trade has also been shrinking over the last year, after stagnating since 2011.

Though Shelton claims that “Africa benefits from access to reasonably priced Chinese manufactured products,” the continent’s currencies are crashing, so prices of imports have soared. China’s ability to keep its products cheap was based on its currency being artificially undervalued.

This is much harder now that the yuan is considered an IMF world reserve currency. But Chinese prices are still ‘reasonable’ because Beijing rejects worker rights and health (and bans non-sweetheart trade unions), severely damages natural environments both locally and globally, continues the apartheid-style rural-urban migrant labor system, and uses marketing prowess pioneered in the U.S. to foist consumption of especially shabby products, whose planned obsolescence is even more rapid than U.S. corporations’ slovenly standards.

In rebuttal, says Shelton, “China-Africa trade grew from only $10 billion in 2000 to over $200 billion in 2015.” True, but that left Africa with a widening trade deficit today, as well as a payments deficit – i.e., profit outflows to multinational corporate headquarters, whether Western or BRICS – resulting in today’s Sub-Saharan African annual current account deficit: now more than $50 billion. (Illicit outflows makethis far worse.)

From 2007-15, finding hard currency to cover the worsening trade and payments imbalances entailed vast amounts of lending from Chinese creditors to African countries. The sub-continent’s foreign debt suddenly doubled, by $200 billion, and the impact of macro-economic imbalances will devastate Africa’s finances for years to come.

The typical neoliberal path out of this dilemma is opening up African borders for more Foreign Direct Investment, as Focac promised. According to Shelton:

“Growing Chinese investments in Africa benefit local economies and create new commercial opportunities in domestic markets. China’s investments in hydrocarbons, mining, dams, road and rail systems, as well as infrastructure and telecommunications, are immensely beneficial for Africa’s development.”

There were indeed profitable projects during the short-lived commodity boom, but also mega-deals that revealed limits to the hyped infrastructure and mining investment drive. In Southern Africa, Zimbabwe’s main diamond mines were looted by the Chinese and Zimbabwean military in cahoots, Botswana’s coal-fired power-plant failed, and Zambia’s disastrous hydro-electricity expansion suffered allegations of sub-standard Chinese equipment. Other notorious mega-project failures, according to the Wall Street Journal, include China Railways in Nigeria ($7.5 billion) and Libya ($4.2 billion), Chinese petroleum in Angola ($3.4 billion) and Nigeria ($1.4 billion), and Chinese metal investors in the DRC and Ghana ($3 billion each).

“China’s successful development model,” concluded Shelton, “holds wide appeal in Africa where states are seeking to escape the poverty trap.” But a centralized dictatorship, cheap labor prohibited from organizing, a mass market still to be indebted beyond salvation, Western consumerism, and several planets worth of resources are fantasies that only weakly disguise the role Focac has set for itself.

That role is simple: facilitating neo-colonialism, with Johannesburg elites like Shelton lubricating the journey by pretending there are no made-in-China African potholes.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on China’s Path into Africa Blocked

China’s Path into Africa Blocked

February 4th, 2016 by Prof. Patrick Bond

On Dec. 4-5, Chinese leaders visited Johannesburg’s central business district to pledge $60 billion to help industrialise the African continent. More than 40 African heads of state were in attendance for the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (Focac).

To me, Focac’s most impressive feature was the hard-sell by Beijing’s local allies. In an unprecedented display of bias, the English-language daily newspaper (the Independent group) considered the most important in South Africa’s four largest cities – Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria – ran non-stop, mind-numbingly positive “sunshine journalism.”

The Independent chain’s most intelligent reporters and commentators were flummoxed by a harsh reality they dared not mention: China has amplified African under-development over the past third of a century.

To illustrate, consider enthusiastic Sunday Independent claims by a prominent international relations expert, University of the Witwatersrand Professor Garth Shelton: “China’s ongoing engagement with Africa is a major success story and constitutes a positive example of co-operative interdependence.”

The evidence is useful to consider because Shelton is not a state spin-doctor; he is a leading scholar whose lines of argument are hegemonic, e.g. “Commodity exports to China provide a foundation for economic growth across the African continent.”

But from 2002-11, this was true only if ‘growth’ is measured simply as rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP), uncorrected for depletion of non-renewable resources (what is termed ‘Natural Capital’, drawn down). If that correction is made, Africa’s wealth drains out rapidly, not to mention other ‘Resource Curses’: ecological wreckage, social displacement in mining areas, systemic corruption and serious economic distortions.

Not according to Shelton: “Increased African raw material exports to China significantly benefit national economies.” No, even the World Bank admitted in its 2014 Little Green Data Book that once we apply Natural Capital accounting, 88 percent of Sub-Saharan African countries are net losers from mineral and petroleum exports.

Moreover, the price cycle has since turned, with most commodity exports worth less than half their 2011 peak value. Having overproduced, China has even redirected its own production of semi-processed commodities back to African countries that were formerly net suppliers. South Africa’s largest steel factory (Arcelor Mittal, owned by an Indian) spent 2015 closing five foundries and the second largest (Evraz Highveld, owned by a Russian) declared a form of bankruptcy.

South Africa’s trade and industry minister (Rob Davies, a Communist Party leader) was compelled to impose a 10 percent price surcharge, notwithstanding the SA currency’s crash from R6/$ in 2011 to R14.5/$ today. Frustrated Nigerian steel manufacturers have a similar story.

Such frenetic overproduction at the world scale is one of the main reasons the Focac promise of Africa’s next-wave economic growth – industrialization – is a pipe dream. The first waves of cheap Chinese imports began a third of a century ago, as structural adjustment policies shrunk Africa’s disposable income, decimating local clothing, textiles, footwear, appliances and electronics industries.

Moreover, Chinese manufacturers’ demand for oil, gas and coal is the main factor – along with irresponsibility by the EU, the US, India and other consumers of African fossil fuels – behind climate change. When the leaders of China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US signed the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009 (as an undemocratic side-deal to the UN negotiations then underway), they replaced the Kyoto Protocol’s binding provisions with voluntary pledges. This set the stage for the Paris deal now coming to fruition, with its 3+ degree pledges assuring runaway climate change. Copenhagen fused sub-imperial BRICS countries (minus Russia) with.

Shelton expresses faith that “As the Chinese middle class expands, the range of export opportunities to China will become enormous.” But that class has a profound problem: over-indebtedness and with it, the inability to convert real estate collateral to cash. The middle-class strategy of property speculation has come unstuck what with massive overbuilding of residential real estate, followed by a 20 percent crash in 2014-15, a problem far worse in the provincial cities. The ratio of real estate to GDP (23 percent) in China is three times higher today than the US at its most property-bubbly in 2007.

In any case it is most unlikely African countries can produce consumables for the middle class that are of the bulk volume to achieve economies of scale and hence lower prices. And today there is a world glut not only in over-supplied raw materials from Africa, e.g. coal, for which Chinese import demand is 120 million tonnes/year for the foreseeable future after a peak of 150 million tonnes in 2013 (a 20 percent crash). More generally, world trade has also been shrinking over the last year, after stagnating since 2011.

Though Shelton claims that “Africa benefits from access to reasonably priced Chinese manufactured products,” the continent’s currencies are crashing, so prices of imports have soared. China’s ability to keep its products cheap was based on its currency being artificially undervalued.

This is much harder now that the yuan is considered an IMF world reserve currency. But Chinese prices are still ‘reasonable’ because Beijing rejects worker rights and health (and bans non-sweetheart trade unions), severely damages natural environments both locally and globally, continues the apartheid-style rural-urban migrant labor system, and uses marketing prowess pioneered in the U.S. to foist consumption of especially shabby products, whose planned obsolescence is even more rapid than U.S. corporations’ slovenly standards.

In rebuttal, says Shelton, “China-Africa trade grew from only $10 billion in 2000 to over $200 billion in 2015.” True, but that left Africa with a widening trade deficit today, as well as a payments deficit – i.e., profit outflows to multinational corporate headquarters, whether Western or BRICS – resulting in today’s Sub-Saharan African annual current account deficit: now more than $50 billion. (Illicit outflows makethis far worse.)

From 2007-15, finding hard currency to cover the worsening trade and payments imbalances entailed vast amounts of lending from Chinese creditors to African countries. The sub-continent’s foreign debt suddenly doubled, by $200 billion, and the impact of macro-economic imbalances will devastate Africa’s finances for years to come.

The typical neoliberal path out of this dilemma is opening up African borders for more Foreign Direct Investment, as Focac promised. According to Shelton:

“Growing Chinese investments in Africa benefit local economies and create new commercial opportunities in domestic markets. China’s investments in hydrocarbons, mining, dams, road and rail systems, as well as infrastructure and telecommunications, are immensely beneficial for Africa’s development.”

There were indeed profitable projects during the short-lived commodity boom, but also mega-deals that revealed limits to the hyped infrastructure and mining investment drive. In Southern Africa, Zimbabwe’s main diamond mines were looted by the Chinese and Zimbabwean military in cahoots, Botswana’s coal-fired power-plant failed, and Zambia’s disastrous hydro-electricity expansion suffered allegations of sub-standard Chinese equipment. Other notorious mega-project failures, according to the Wall Street Journal, include China Railways in Nigeria ($7.5 billion) and Libya ($4.2 billion), Chinese petroleum in Angola ($3.4 billion) and Nigeria ($1.4 billion), and Chinese metal investors in the DRC and Ghana ($3 billion each).

“China’s successful development model,” concluded Shelton, “holds wide appeal in Africa where states are seeking to escape the poverty trap.” But a centralized dictatorship, cheap labor prohibited from organizing, a mass market still to be indebted beyond salvation, Western consumerism, and several planets worth of resources are fantasies that only weakly disguise the role Focac has set for itself.

That role is simple: facilitating neo-colonialism, with Johannesburg elites like Shelton lubricating the journey by pretending there are no made-in-China African potholes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Path into Africa Blocked

Autonomous Weapon Systems and US Military Robotics: Unmanned Aerial and Ground Vehicles (UAV and UGV)

February 4th, 2016 by Igor Pejic

Ever since the second World War and especially during the Cold War era the idea of engineering an autonomous weapon system, also known as military robot, has taken deep roots throughout military circles all across the globe. From first specimens like Goliath tracked mines and Soviet Teletanks, which now look rather funny, to top tier drones capable of delivering heavy payload hundreds of miles away removing any potential threat which could harm their operators. Countries like United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Iran, Israel, India and more are heavily investing in these futuristic programs not only in the financial sector but in the science department as well. Many think that these new weapons systems will be the future of modern warfare, although there have been some serious statements considering humanitarian aspects and the potential for human rights violations.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

The first major use of these unmanned machines by the US started in seventies, those were Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) armed with cameras and used primarily for reconnaissance. After the modernization of technologies in the eighties and especially in the nineties the interest for these UAV’s and other similar machines grew rapidly. The first major contract was signed in the nineties between US Department of Defense and AAI Corporation considering the development of these vehicles. Following this many corporations and institutes saw their interests in developing such machines which could be used in civilian and military operations. Some of the prominent companies who actively produce and develop UAV’s are AeroVironment Inc., Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and NASA.

Military drones or UAV’s can be separated in three major categories: midsize military drones, which also have commercial use, large size military-specific drones and stealth combat drones. All these vehicles vary in size, power, operational range, price and capabilities.

Design of midsize military drones was focused on reconnaissance and are capable of manual or autonomous flight. These drones can be equipped with high-definition cameras, infrared or night-vision, electro-optical cameras which can capture high resolution images, and in recent years these drones are equipped with high-tech radars allowing all-weather terrain mapping and target tracking. Many of these drones are capable of creating beyond line of sight communications relay for ground-based radios, greatly improving the effectives and awareness between troops on the ground in various terrains. The operational range of these UAV’s spans between 10km to 100km, and are currently being used in almost 90 countries across the world. Although not designed to carry bombs or missiles these drones can be used as weapons, there have been reports some terrorist organizations have managed to attach almost 30kg of explosives. The future development of these drones will probably include better survivability in hostile territories, increased range, endurance and capability of releasable missiles and bombs.

Large size military-specific UAV’s are combat ready drones. Capabilities of these drones far surpasses the midsize class but they are also highly expensive to produce and usually require developed military infrastructure. Armament of these UAV’s may vary depending on the country, and are usually used for eliminating ground targets both infantry and armor. Operational range as well as endurance is far superior to their mid-size counterparts. Some drones of this class can have a flight time exceeding 45 hours. Communication capabilities can include wide band satellite communications both extending and expanding the amount of transmissible data. In this manner they can be deployed as communications relay. The altitude of these aerial crafts extends up to 50,000 feet. This significantly improves the survivability against potential air defense like various MANPADS. These specific drones are currently developed in 10 countries, but it is believed proliferation of UAV’s will soon extend to another 20 countries signaling the beginning of their large size military-specific drone programs.

Stealth combat drones represent one of the highest levels of technological sophistication. Their production as well as their capabilities are mostly kept secret by the states and corporations developing them. Their design represents a wing-shape vehicle in order to minimize their radar signature. Additionally, implementation and application of stealth coating and low-observable features can also reflect or absorb other radio signals. Their primary objective consists of penetrating hostile territory while avoiding high-end air defense systems. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are two companies reportedly developing such UAV’s. For now, only the United States is using this class of drones. But Russia, China, India, Israel and some European countries have active development programs.

The proliferation of this technology will come natural over time, many state and non-state commercial actors are attracted by the thought of having a remote control aerial machine capable of delivering top-notch services, for both military and civilian use. However, when discussing UAV’s, we should keep in mind that these are not totally autonomous vehicles, but rather remote-control machines operated by civilian or military personnel from a distance. Further development and more frequent usage of drones clearly indicates the need for more autonomy for variety of reasons. First of all, UAV’s are remote-controlled, thus their signals can be jammed or totally disrupted, large quantities of information usually require huge bandwidth that sometimes requires more satellites or better infrastructure. Secondly, if they are controlled via radio signals there will be some kind of delay, which for reconnaissance purposes is not that important but for real time combat situations could become crucial. Thirdly, with more sophisticated technology things like reaction time, combat and maneuver capabilities, stress and every other human factor that could potentially prove bad for completing combat assignments would be replaced with the autonomous system. Furthermore, the deployment of drones, mostly by US and UK, was done in areas where one state already has aerial superiority like in Pakistan, Somalia and until recent events in Yemen as well. The implementation of fully autonomous systems, drones could be deployed on hostile territories with better air defenses, without the need for constant line of communication.

Some UAVs Used by the U.S. Military

The largest producer and consumer of UAV’s is the United States military; it is suggested that around 11,000 drones are deployed across various sectors of the US military. Most of them are used for scouting and reconnaissance purposes, but part of the drones is armed and combat ready. Most frequent missions for these armed drones are usually war on terror assignments. These are some of the most popular and used military-specific drones:

General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle:

Characteristics: Length 8m; Wingspan 17m; Height 2.1m; Maximum Speed 425 km/h; Cruising Speed 277 km/h; Endurance 30h

Armament: Missiles 4 x AGM-114 Hellfire or 8 x AIM-92 Stinger; Bombs 4 x GBU-44/B Viper Strike

General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper:

Characteristics: Length 11m; Wingspan 20m; Height 3.81m; Maximum Speed 482 km/h; Cruising Speed 313 km/h; Endurance 14h fully loaded

Armament: Missiles up to 4 x AGM-114 Hellfire combined with 2 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser guided bombs; UAV has the capability of carrying GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Ammunition (JDAM)

General Atomics MQ-1 Predator:

Characteristics: Length 8.22m; Wingspan 14.8m; Height 2.1m; Maximum Speed 217 km/h; Cruising Speed 130-165 km/h; Endurance 24h

Armament: Missiles 2 x AGM-114 Hellfire; 4 x AIM-92 Stinger; 6 x AGM-176 Griffin

AAI RQ-7 Shadow:

Characteristics: Length 3.4m; Wingspan 4.3m; Height 1m; Maximum Speed 204 km/h; Cruising Speed 130km/h; Endurance 6-9h

Armament: RQ-7 Shadow is still used for surveillance purposes, but there is a plan for arming this drone in the future.

Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk:

Characteristics: Length 14.5m; Wingspan 39.9m; Height 4.7m; Maximum Speed 629 km/h; Cruising Speed 575 km/h; Endurance 32h+

Armament: None, this drone is used for surveillance and reconnaissance.

Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV)

Along with the UAV’s the development of unmanned ground vehicles(UGV), is becoming ever more popular across the world. The idea behind this machinery is that UGV’s can serve as a supplement to the soldiers on the ground and eventually replace them in the future. The UGV’s are suited to perform daily routine and boring tasks with pin-point precision and efficiency. They can be designed to withstand pressure and complete various tasks which could potentially harm or threaten the life of a soldier thus significantly improving combat effectiveness on the battlefield. The need for such vehicles was recognized by the US after the Gulf War. Transformation of the army from heavy armor and firepower to a lighter, responsive force capable of dealing lethal damage but also surviving adversaries fire power became a top priority. Development of these vehicles is more complex than the UAV’s since they need to able to traverse various terrains and accomplish various military assignments. UGV’s can be classified into four sections: Small robotic building and tunnel searcher; Small-unit logistic mover; Unmanned wingman ground vehicle; autonomous hunter-killer team.

Small robotic building and tunnel searcher is a UGV designed for short-distance reconnaissance remotely operated by a soldier. These machines are especially effective in urban areas with cramped spaces, tunnels, caves and ruins which can potentially provide allot of hiding places for enemies, traps and are generally dangerous. Searcher UGV’s are armed with high resolution cameras (infrared and night-vision), a variety of sensors can be mounted with a robotic arm for specific situations. Mobility of these vehicles is highly regarded, it is expected that searcher UGV can traverse all kinds of ruinous terrains as well as multi level buildings. Though the autonomy of the searcher is rather low, its dependent on the soldier who controls it, the UGV showed good results on the ground and during combat operations. Capability of locating traps and hidden enemy units has proven this drone significant for the assaulting troops, especially when fighting terrorists.

The small-unit logistic mover also known as the Donkey is a concept of supply, weapons and even wounded soldier carrier UGV which could operate across the battlefield. Ever since the ancient times logistic issues were one of the main components of a successful battle. Ammunition, food, water, weapons and various tools are needed by the soldiers in different situations, some of this can be carried by servicemen, but, heavy loads can cause unwanted fatigue resulting in negative combat effectiveness. The Donkey UGV is capable of providing solutions in this logistic situations. This small-unit logistic mover is semi-autonomous medium size precede/follow UGV with the capacity to carry a couple hundred kilos. Benefits include lightening the soldiers backpack, but also with good sensors it can follow a path across an active battlefield thus not depending on the remote control operators. Fully autonomous Donkey could provide a constant flow of supplies to soldiers whether they are in urban, rural or any other terrain without the direct line of sight to the operators, rendering potential signal jamming useless.

Unmanned wingman ground vehicle is a medium size UGV which provides assistance to small mechanized infantry and armor units that usually operate in small teams. Assistance is provided by constant reconnaissance and observation of the battlefield thus providing crucial information to the combat units. With high-tech cameras, sensors and mobility the “Wingman” can be on a non-stop scout/guard duty. This detection UGV can boost the security of the units when the soldiers are resting, camping or are just occupied by other tasks. In today’s conflicts the amount of information especially in urban areas can be rather confusing making it harder for soldiers to navigate and properly manage their assets which could ultimately lead to lethal results. Wingman UGV can assist with data processing, arranging targets and detecting threats more efficiently than any human sense, with high autonomy it requires little management.

Autonomous hunter-killer team concept is made around the idea that a couple of UGV’s (5-10 vehicles) can perform duties such as ambush and termination missions while penetrating deep into the frontline of the battlefield in various terrains and weather conditions. These assignments can usually prove lethal for soldiers especially if the unit lacks the knowledge of the terrain, and the conditions are highly in favor for the enemy. In today’s conflicts, especially in urban areas its usually hard to do a detailed reconnaissance despite the high-tech machinery. Hunter-killer teams can operate day and night, in all terrain/weather conditions, armed with sophisticated sensors, lethal weapons and with high degree of autonomy, these drones can easily turn the tide of the conflict while saving the lives of soldiers. Primary objective when designing these vehicles is high autonomy, meaning that they are not dependent on the human operator, augmented intelligence and enhanced local network between the UGV’s in the team are the main assets. These robots when released can usually assign targets and navigate through terrain with ease, of course the human factor will be crucial when it comes to programming these machines.

Some UGVs Used by the U.S. Military

The Soldier UGV (SUGV) is a man-packed robot, highly mobile and light machine weighing around 13 kilos primarily used for scouting and reconnaissance in cramped/ruin areas. The system can be re-configured for other missions and can be augmented with a variety of sensors and even some explosive devices. The Soldier can perform tasks such as surveillance, door breach, smoke generation and more. The Soldier is a light class UGV, similar types of robots from this class are : Cobra man-portable robotic system used for building clearing, tunnel and sewer reconnaissance and vehicle inspection; Dragon Runner four wheel man-portable ground sensor UGV designed to increase situational awareness; TALON is a lightweight, versatile machine capable of reconnaissance as well as weapons delivery and can operate in all-weather/terrain conditions; MATILDA is a low cost reconnaissance robot which can be re-configured multiple ways depending on the assignment. Configurations include robotic arm, detachable breaching mechanism with explosive charges; URBOT is a remote control UGV capable of bomb disposal and can also be incorporated with sensors for some ad hoc reconnaissance missions.

Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Vehicle is a medium size mobile robotic system developed for US Marine Corps in order to minimize the risk and neutralize threats across the spectrum of conflicts. Gladiator can perform both scout and surveillance, reconnaissance and direct fire tasks. Other medium size UGV’s include: Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle (MULE) is a unmanned platform that can carry heavy loads of supplies and equipment across the terrain; Mini-Flail Robotic Combat Support System (RCSS) is a remotely operated mine neutralization system used in clearing a footpath or a small minefield; Surveillance and Reconnaissance Ground Equipment (SARGE) is a four wheeled all terrain vehicle capable of day/night imaging, thermal imaging and high power zoom surveillance.

Armed Robotic Vehicle is a UGV that comes in two variants, as a surveillance and fire support UGV. Though the second one can provide basic reconnaissance it lacks the sophisticated sensors and technology of the previous, surveillance and target acquisition dedicated UGV. Robotic Armored Assault System (second option) can be deployed with direct fire weapons with a variety of ammunition for completing different tasks. Other heavy UVG’s are: All Purpose Transport System (ARTS) is a remote controlled 3.5-ton loader which can be transformed into a forklift, backhoe, UXO clearance vehicle or even used for deploying specialized EOD tools; Cooperative Ground Attack Robots (COUGAR) is an experimental project focusing on developing better Ai, coordination and autonomy in UGV’s in order to be more effective in the conflict zone. Many other heavy UGV’s are still in experimental/testing phase.

Large class UGV’s consist of technologies that are being implemented in machines such as tanks, transports, excavators and more in order enabling these machines to be remote controlled or have some degree of autonomy. This has been experimented on tanks like Panther, M60 Panther, M1 Abrahams Panther II also it has been tested on some armored vehicles like Humvee. These experiments are not only popular in the US but in the other countries as well, the Russian Armata-14 next-gen MBT is supposed to be automated in the future.

Conclusion

The proliferation of robotics and autonomous weapon systems will become a major trend in the future of warfare. These sophisticated machines guided by radars, sensors, augmented Ai, without the need for rest and able to operate equally good in all weather and terrain conditions will slowly push out the human factor in some military tasks. Though the absence of human factor can be useful in terms of better combat efficiency and less casualties it is questionable if these robots can show morals, war ethics and even mercy towards enemies, regarding them as human beings. We have already witnessed the collateral damage in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen etc. when it comes to remote controlled drones which are operated in real time by living servicemen. The absence of direct contact and interaction on the battlefield can make civilian casualties look unimportant or even meaningless. With better autonomy, especially when it comes to killer-robots, the only interaction between the battlefield and the soldier will be a programming part of the machine when it goes onto missions and when it returns, in fact the whole interaction could probably be reduced to maintenance work. This sounds nice from a perspective of a highly advanced military, but not for those who are about to have a direct contact with these machines on the battlefield. The global community and especially the international organizations who participate in creating and sustaining international law and the customs of war need to have an active approach to these matters. The risk of misuse or just careless behavior by those who possess this technology is very high, thus the boundaries must be set and determined before the innocent pay the highest price.

Igor Pejic studies terrorism, security and organised crime at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.

Notes:

  • http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS%20World%20of%20Drones_052115.pdf

  • http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/CSSAnalyse164-EN.pdf
  • https://sin.thecthulhu.com/library/military/vehicle/Technology_Development_for_Army_Unmanned_Ground_Vehicles.pdf
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Autonomous Weapon Systems and US Military Robotics: Unmanned Aerial and Ground Vehicles (UAV and UGV)

Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and National Defense Forces “Pound” Al Nusra Terrorist Groups in Ratyan

February 4th, 2016 by South Front

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) supported by the National Defense Forces (NDF), the Iraqi paramilitary groups of Kata’eb Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba have completed a siege of the militant groups in the town of Ratyan. Now, the Syrian artillery and warplanes are pounding the militants in the area. According to the battlefield reports, most of the trapped militants are members of the Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra.

The Russian and Syrian Air Forces conducted a joint operation targeting the militant groups’ strongholds in al-Tamoura and near the Azaz-Aleppo highway. The pro-government sources report about heavy loses among the terrorist forces. However, this isn’t confirmed yet.

The main supply line of the militants, connecting the towns of Hayyan, Anadan, Haraytan and Maayer, was cut off in the Syrian army attack on Feb.2. The cut-off supply line creates a major problem in the Northern and Western parts of the Aleppo province amid a massive operation of the Syrian forces aimed to liberate Nubl and al-Zahra.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah fighters and Syrian troops from the besieged Shi’ite towns of Nubl and al-Zahraa have reportedly stormed the outskirts of Bayanoun. The clashes are going there. If Bayanoun is liberated, approximately 35,000 predominately Shi’ite civilians in Nubl and al-Zahraa will be rescued after 3-years long siege by the terrorists. This will also allow the Syrian forces to improve its logistic lines which will positively impact the military situation in the province.

Six people were killed and more than two dozen others injured in separate bomb attacks in and around the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, security and medical sources said on Feb.2.

Two self-declared governors of ISIS terrorist group have been killed in separate incidents in Iraq. On Jan.31 Mohammad al-Vaziri, the ISIS governor of the province of Kirkuk, was reportedly killed in a joint aerial operation by the Iraqi Air Force and the US-led coalition. Over 30 other members of Daesh were also killed in the raid. Another ISIS governor, known as Abu Hamzah, was killed along with five other terrorists during infighting in the province of Anbar.

If you like South Front‘s work, and if you have the possibility, please donate to South Front via PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and National Defense Forces “Pound” Al Nusra Terrorist Groups in Ratyan

Euromaidan Unmasked: Europe Shocked by the Bitter Truth on Ukraine

February 4th, 2016 by Oriental Review

The hard-hitting documentary by Paul Moreira “Ukraine, les masques de la révolution” [Ukraine: Masks of the Revolution], released on Monday night by Canal+, created a turmoil both in Ukraine and France well before the premiere.

On Sunday the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry reported in Facebook that their Ambassador in France had sent an outraged letter to Canal+ where he condemned  the documentary as a “a pamphlet at the height of the worst disinformation traditions” “using primitive methods of journalistic manipulation, including the handling of comments of respondents, distorted in translation and facts and purely fabricated images“. The same day Le Monde doubled the pressure on Canal+.

Paul Moreira has calmly and respectfully responded to his critics by a detailed post translated into English here. To the credit of Canal Plus’ management, the documentary was screened in time:

 (the English subtitles are not yet available)

Please watch it attentively. And let’s try to understand why it has infuriated the Kiev regime

To be fair, the masterpiece did not reveal anything new.

So far there were a lot of separate investigations by international organizations, NGOs, concerned individuals etc on different aspects of the “Revolution of Dignity“: who actually killed the “heavenly hundred“, what happened in Odessa in May 2014, what is going on in the zone of “anti-terrorist operation” in the South-East of Ukraine, where are the “Russian troops” and where are the Western mercenaries there… But most of them were successfully ignored by the mainstream Western media, stick to their comfortable myths about Euromaidan.

The principal danger of Paul Moreira’s heartbreaking 50-minutes long documentary is that it exposed all critically important lies and silenced facts about “Revolution of Dignity” and its agents in a concentrated form at the established French TV channel.

Paul Moreira did not do anything but showed a simple and honest truth – there was no dignity in that “revolution”. There is no “free civilizational choice” and “independent and legitimate authorities” in today’s Ukraine. There are gangsters licensed to kill and rob, psychopaths and criminals in the “democratic parliament”, parallel Nazi-inspired army, foreign officials who manipulate the political process in a sovereign country, media under total nationalist control etc. His argumentation and picture are so evident, eloquent and bright that there is no reasonable way to refute them. Here is the cause of hysteria and calls to ban (which paradoxically has triggered unprecedented public attention to the movie far beyond France) – they understand that an open and fair discussion would lead further undesirable revelations against the interim rulers in Kiev.

One more pleasant outcome of this story is that the rumors about clinical death of the independent journalism in the West are apparently somewhat exaggerated…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Euromaidan Unmasked: Europe Shocked by the Bitter Truth on Ukraine

US Elections as Political Theater; Syria Peace Talks vs Battlefield Reality; US vs China in Africa

February 4th, 2016 by Eric Draitser

Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.org appears on CPR Sunday with security analyst Mark Sleboda [pictured left], and broadcaster Don DeBar to discuss the latest global developments. The conversation opens with a short discussion of the US presidential race and the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump.

Eric, Mark, and Don spend the majority of the hour discussing the latest round of Syria peace talks and contrasting that to the situation on the ground where the Syrian Arab Army continues to make gains. They discuss the Kurds and their shifting allegiance to Moscow. Finally, Eric touches on the US attempts to undermine sovereignty in the Great Lakes region of Africa in order to re-establish its hegemony as Africa looks increasingly to China. Much much more as well in this weekly hour long conversation.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Elections as Political Theater; Syria Peace Talks vs Battlefield Reality; US vs China in Africa

“The Martian”: This Hollywood Heroism is Also for Chinese Viewers

February 4th, 2016 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

Many claim that books and films– politicians too—are frequently the result of a deliberate marketing strategy, that they’re designed by a team according to formulae based on earlier successes and applied like an algorithm to the market:–to win. “The Martian” may be one of these made-to-order productions, containing as it does, all essential ingredients– a star actor, an ethnically diverse cast, a futuristic theme, spectacular cosmic sets, high tech knowhow, and a heroic American plot.

Americans will never tire of their need for muscular heroes engaged in the struggle between good and bad, challenging the forces of nature, triumphing in a valiant rescue. But maybe such needs are not limited to American tastes. Who doesn’t seek heroic resolutions and reassurance that a man’s (sic) intelligence and ingenuity will save us from human folly and tame the power of nature?

I can’t help wondering if Crown Publishers, who plucked “The Martians” from a self-published unknown (Andy Weir), and 20th Century Fox– within months of the book’s release they secured film rights, released the film in under two years, and rapidly snagged an Oscar nomination– had been searching for this very story. Following the new “Star Wars” and building on the popularity of space science and its spectacular recent discoveries, a human drama on Mars was inevitable.

The movie’s plot is as credible as a person washed up on that desert island in “Castaway”. In “The Martian” we have a cosmonaut botanist Watney (Matt Damon) lost in future space (on Mars), using his wit and science knowhow to survive, and doing so on less than Tom Hanks had available in “Castaway”.

In the end our space hero is rescued by the woman spaceship commander and her multi-ethnic crew, after tense months of negotiations between them and officials at NASA headquarters on earth. This drama equals that of “Apollo 13”, with Damon’s heroism matching that of Hanks (again). Except that “The Martian” tags a new partner: China.

Filmmaking, like any industry, is sensitive to marketing statistics. Examining these, one begins to speculate about what drives films like “The Martian”. In 2014, one research agency announced how film entertainment worldwide was expected to grow from $88.3 billion in 2015 to $104.6 billion in 2019. Another survey notes how the international box office market is expanding rapidly in the Asian-Pacific region, where, we are advised, China is the market to watch. Thus film companies have their sights set on China’s filmgoers.

Overseas auto sales may be declining but entertainment is an expanding revenue source for the USA. From science fiction (“The Terminator” series) to children’s education (“Sesame Street”), hundreds of US produced TV series and films are translated into dozens of languages and franchised for production by other countries. Futuristic spectacles like “The Martian” become big foreign revenue earners. Everyone enjoys drama; when it’s combined with credible science, special effects and a hero like Matt Damon, it’s a box office success.

It’s also a political winner. As poet Amiri Baraka emphasized and filmmaker Spike Lee reinforces in his productions, everything is political. On the surface, unlike a Lee film, “The Martian” lacks any explicit political message. There are no fearless Marine snipers, no gallant lawyers defending minority rights, no environmentalists challenging corporate polluters, no journalists doggedly pursuing truth at any price.

“The Martian”’s subtext lies in its demonstration of the brilliance of the American scientist and how far his team will go to save one American life. This film is also on target with its ethnic diversity. (Although the hero is still a white man.) While some personalities differ slightly from the book’s characters, they nevertheless represent what’s described as an A-1 cast: stranded Mars cosmonaut Watney (Damon); smart women, headed by the space ship’s commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain); Purnell (Donald Glover), a genius African American mathematician; Martinez (Michela Pena), a compassionate Latino pilot; and Ng (Ben Wong), the capable Chinese Jet Propulsion Lab director. Finally, we have Dr. Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor), charged with the rescue of Damon, declaring that his mother is from India. (Everyone except a hijab-crowned physicist, an Arab geneticist, and a Native American chemist is present.)

If we look back at the 1995 all-white-all-male “Apollo 13” cast, it’s clear we’ve advanced on some fronts. Of course “Apollo 13” was based on reality while “The Martian”, like “Star Trek”, is futuristic. And for America, true ethnic parity, while not science fiction, is not present-day reality.

The main hidden text of “The Martian” is found in the role of China– Communist China, not the scientist played by Ben Wong. China enters the story at the moment of NASA’s despair and saves their seemingly doomed rescue plan. From their Beijing headquarters, watching the drama on live TV, Chinese space officials determinedly put aside their own project and offer to rocket supplies to the stricken Americans. A possible American failure is turned into an international victory, and Damon (he’s always Damon on screen) is reunited with his spaceship. Cheers erupt among crowds watching the rescue in Times Square, in London’s Trafalgar and at Tiananmen Square. (A good time was had by all.)

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on “The Martian”: This Hollywood Heroism is Also for Chinese Viewers