Washington’s view on Russia’s Syrian campaign depends on who’s commenting at different times along with what the Western media reports or suppresses.
Pentagon commanders are awestruck by Moscow’s formidable military power, its sophisticated weapons matching or exceeding their own capability, outdoing the prowess of other NATO countries.
Its navy once derisively called “more rust than ready” is reinventing itself impressively. Its overall military capability dispels the myth about unmatched US superiority.
Its Syrian campaign since September 30 has been devastatingly effective by any standard, permitting government ground forces to recapture lost territory, making slow and steady gains.
Peace remains elusive. Expect late January talks to be no more successful than earlier ones. Washington wants US-controlled puppet governance replacing Syrian sovereign independence.
Russia’s intervention changed the dynamic on the ground dramatically – short of hastening an end of conflict.
Protracted war continues. US and allied support for ISIS and other terrorist groups means endless conflict and instability.
Syria is like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – ravaged and destroyed by US imperialism, devastated by continued war, Russia making a huge difference but unable alone to turn around a troubled region as long as Washington remains hardline.
Yet its campaign remains impressive by any standard, continuing without letup. US propaganda portraying it as ineffective or striking the wrong targets is utter rubbish.
Early in the campaign, Putin said Russia’s “objective is to stabilize the legitimate authority (in Syria) and create conditions for a political compromise.”
He also wants ISIS and other terrorist groups contained – fought abroad, preventing them from gaining a foothold in Central Asia, threatening Russia’s heartland.
At the same time, he knows as long as US imperial policy remains unchanged, endless wars, instability and chaos reflect the new normal, continuing ahead without letup, affecting other countries yet to be targeted – a permanent war agenda risking WW III.
On January 9, The New York Times, Reuters and other media sources cited an unnamed senior US official’s Big Lie instead of debunking it – claiming “only a third of Russian airstrikes” was hitting ISIS targets.
Thousands of Russian sorties and strikes hit ISIS and other terrorist groups with pin-point accuracy, causing major disruptions in their operations, permitting Syrian military advances.
Claiming otherwise distorts reality on the ground, ignoring Russia’s real war on terrorism, polar opposite to Washington’s phony one, supporting the scourge it claims to oppose.
The unnamed US source claims most Russian airstrikes hit anti-Assad rebels, so-called moderates, along with killing civilians in residential areas and market places, using few precision-guided weapons.
False on all counts! All anti-Assad militants are terrorists, imported from scores of countries, trained by CIA operatives and US special forces in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, maybe Israel and elsewhere – along with their counterparts in these countries.
Russia’s precision-guided weapons are as technically advanced as any in the West, used exclusively in its Syrian campaign with devastating effectiveness, targeting ISIS and other terrorists alone, avoiding civilian areas.
Big Lies otherwise persist – Washington the epicenter of managed news misinformation.
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.”
Guantanamo is one of numerous US global black sites operating extrajudicially.
Unknown numbers of innocent victims languish under hellish conditions, subjected to torture and other forms of mistreatment, denied all international law guaranteed rights.
Most were uncharged, others falsely accused. They’re all Muslims, America’s target of choice.
The vast majority of the 779 men and boys held at Guantanamo since the infamous camp opened in 2002 were sold to US authorities for bounty – not imprisoned for criminality.
A handful were convicted by rubber-stamp military commissions – illegal by any standard, due process and judicial fairness denied.
Many prisoners cleared for release remain detained. Around 100 are still illegally held. Like other US torture prisons, Guantanamo remains a black hole of injustice, symbolizing Washington’s barbarism.
Kuwaiti national Fayiz Mohammed Ahmed Al-Kandari was extrajudicially held since 2002. On January 8, a Defense Department statement announced his repatriation “to the government of the State of Kuwait.”
After 14 years of wrongful detention, US authorities determined he’s no “threat to the security of the United States.” He never was nor were virtually all other wrongfully held detainees.
A US rubber-stamp Combatant Status Review Tribunal falsely accused him of “participat(ing) in jihad in Afghanistan” despite no verifiable evidence proving it.
“Osama bin Laden personally provided (him and others with) religious instruction and (training).”
Impossible! He was ill and dying, succumbing in December 2001 in a Pakistan hospital of natural causes – widely reported at the time. Obama did not kill Osama.
Kandari categorically denied accusations against him. Years earlier, his lead Office of Military Commissions assigned lawyer Lt. Col. Barry Wingard said:
“There simply is no evidence other than he is a Muslim in Afghanistan at the wrong time, other than double and triple hearsay statements, something I have never seen as justification for incarceration.”
He called Kandari unjustly “caged like a circus animal.” All detainees at Guantanamo and other US black sites are automatically guilty by accusation.
Kandari was a humanitarian aid worker in Afghanistan at the wrong time, caught up in the post-US October 2001 invasion chaos – seized and sold to US authorities as he tried fleeing cross-border to Pakistan for safety.
As a teenager, he experienced Saddam’s summer 1990 Kuwait invasion. He helped others in his community, delivering food, providing various services.
He was appalled by America’s rape of Yugoslavia, calling it similar to what happened to Kuwait. He chose the wrong time to provide humanitarian aid for beleaguered Afghans.
Refusing to believe “there is no innocent person” at Guantanamo made him a marked man, singled out for special brutality, including prolonged torture and other ways used to try breaking his spirit.
Remarkably, he refused to make false confessions. Allegations against him were entirely fabricated, including:
“provid(ing) instruction to Al Qaeda members and trainees;”
“serv(ing) as an advisor to Osama bin Laden,” a man he never met and had no connection to;
“produc(ing) recruitment audio and video tapes which encouraged membership in Al Qaeda and participation in jihad.”
Other falsified allegations followed during his years of illegal detention, including:
fighting for the Taliban;
spending time at Tora Bora with bin Laden;
serving as an Al Qaeda and Taliban religious leader; and
being associated with al-Wafa, a Saudi charity said to be linked to terrorism.
No evidence supported any allegations he faced. During a 2005 military review, he said:
“At the end of this exciting story and after all these various accusations, when I spent most of my time alongside bin Laden as his advisor and his religious leader…All this happened in a period of three months, which is the period of time I stayed in Afghanistan. I ask, are these accusations against (me) or against Superman?”
He was brutally interrogated hundreds of times, justice denied him until now – 14 years late. He was never convicted of any crimes, all charges dropped last year.
Back home, how Kuwaiti authorities treat him remains to be seen. His travel will be restricted. He’ll be closely watched. Maybe his ill-treatment will continue.
He’s “delighted to be going home and reuniting with his beloved parents and family after all these years away,” his civilian attorney Eric Lewis explained.
He “looks forward to resuming a peaceful life and to putting Guantanamo behind him.” He remains a victim of US barbarism.
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.
The Russian cruise missile strikes against ISIS targets carried out by a combination of air and naval assets drew attention to a relatively obscure component of the Russian armed forces, namely the Caspian Flotilla. While it is not a very large military force, its importance is much greater than numbers would suggest, as its mission cannot be accomplished by other forces of the Southern Military District.
The core of the force are two Gepard light frigates, Tatarstan and Dagestan, one Molniya missile corvette, three Buyan gun corvettes, and three Buyan-M missile corvettes, supported by several smaller gunboats and minesweepers. Dagestan and the three Buyan-M’s are the Caspian Flotilla’s long arm, as each of the four ships carries 8 launch tubes for Oniks and Kalibr cruise missiles which give the ships the ability to strike targets 3,000 km distant. These four ships launched a total of 44 Kalibr missiles against ISIS targets in Syria in two separate operations. Six more Buyan-M ships are to enter service with the Black Sea Fleet by 2018 to hold in check US anti-ballistic missile installations in Romania, and since the two seas are connected by the Volga-Don canal permitting ships with draft of up to 3.5 meters to travel between the seas, all nine Buyan-M ships with a total of 72 cruise missile launch tubes could be concentrated in either of the two seas if the situation requires it.
The Caspian Flotilla also has a ground component in the form of two Naval Infantry battalions supported by 8 small amphibious assault craft capable of carrying one complete battalion in a single lift, which gives the flotilla an ability to deliver troops quickly to any point on the Caspian Sea’s coastline, supported by the rapid-fire artillery and multiple rocket launchers of the frigates and corvettes.
The one weakness of the flotilla is that its ships have weak air defenses, and therefore would have to rely on Southern Military District’s land-based air defenses and fighter cover. Nevertheless, it is easily the most powerful naval force in the Caspian even when it is not reinforced by Black Sea Fleet units.
While the cruise missile capability is what earned the flotilla its media exposure, it also carries out many other missions which are just as important. It protects the Caspian Sea pipelines and drilling installations against terrorist attacks and covert actions by unfriendly states, prevents piracy, smuggling and illegal fishing operations. The presence of the Russian ships in the Caspian deters other countries from attempting to resolve disputes over drilling rights through violence and guarantees Russia the ability to maintain a maritime route to Iran even in the face of opposition by other Caspian countries. The flotilla’s pacifying presence is an important factor promoting Eurasian integration and preserving the security of the New Silk Road and also a barrier against Turkey’s attempts to establish its own sphere of influence in Central Asia.
This final role of the Caspian Flotilla may become more important in the coming years, considering the recent increase in tensions between Russia and Turkey. Three of the countries bordering the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, are members of the Turkic Council and have sought military and technical assistance from Turkey and the United States. The Islamic State’s activity in Afghanistan is on the rise, and ISIS international sponsors might decide to use it to destabilize post-Soviet Central Asian states in order to distract Russia from other global issues. The fact that the economies of Central Asian countries are being hurt by the drop in oil and natural gas prices makes them susceptible to destabilization. All of these factors mean that the Caspian Flotilla will remain on the frontlines of the current global hybrid war for years to come.
*
If you have a possibility, if you like the content and approaches, please, support the project. South Front’s work isn’t possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/
Provided herewith are the introductory sections of this important report on the Death of Dr. David Kelly. Read complete report here.
Dr David Kelly was a British scientist, who worked as a weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). He was renowned for his expertise in his field; over the course of his career, he developed an intricate understanding of Iraq’s weapons programmes. Thus, the government and secret services regularly sought his advice.(49)
On March 19th 2003, five countries, including the UK and US, invaded Iraq. The basis for this war had been laid out in two dossiers (Section 3), published in the preceding months, to which Kelly had contributed. However, when he began to raise concerns about the integrity of these documents, he would find himself caught in a political storm. Four months later, Kelly was dead. The official verdict was suicide; a decision that many believe is flawed. Twelve years later, many questions remain unanswered, and the search for the truth continues.
This report will investigate the death of Dr David Kelly on the presumption that: (i) he was murdered, or (ii) he committed suicide.
To achieve this, it is necessary to objectively assess the available evidence with consideration to current developments. Furthermore, the knowledge of those who have disputed the verdict will be sought to sharpen a picture still shrouded in ambiguity.
This topic is particularly pertinent in light of the impending Chilcot Report, which will examine “the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken”.(36)
There are many aspects to the case, and these cannot be considered in isolation. The complexity demands an appreciation for how the evidence interacts within the wider context surrounding the key event.
Therefore, this report will address the events chronologically, regularly analysing how they may have contributed to the death of David Kelly. The report will then draw upon this essential information to outline the main theories and their relevance within the underlying context.
2.4 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
Table 1: A list of common abbreviations that will be used throughout this report. The full form is given, along with the definition (23, 35, 46, 63,65, 66)
2.5 TIMELINE OF MAIN EVENTS
Figure 1: The timeline describing the main events, from Dr Kelly’s appointment at the MoD, to the day his body was found(7)
2.6 KEY CHARACTERS
Figure 2: The key characters involved with Dr Kelly’s death, and how they were involved (1, 2, 17, 41, 43, 47, 48, 64)
3 THE DOSSIER
Published on 24th September 2002 (see Figure 1), the ‘September Dossier’ (formally known as ‘Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government’) would spark the cascade of events that led to Dr
Kelly’s death.(29) The government’s paper aimed to investigate WMD in Iraq, and ultimately led to the country’s invasion in 2003. A second document, the ‘February Dossier’ (formally known as ‘Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation’) was later published on 3rd February 2003.(28) This section will investigate the dossiers and their claims to determine how they could have led to Kelly’s death.
3.1 THE ‘SEPTEMBER DOSSIER’
According to Alastair Campbell (see Figure 2), the September Dossier aimed to “[set] out the facts on Iraq’s WMD”.(42) However, when Whitehall published documents to discuss the creation of the dossier, it surfaced that many aspects were changed in order to justify the case for war.
The most major change caught Dr Kelly in the political storm that led to his death. Labelled as the ’45-minute claim’, the dossier suggested that Iraq could fire its WMD within 45 minutes of the order. This was among several other changes made to the first draft in order to, as BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan claimed, “sex up” the dossier to make the UK’s case of invasion stronger.(42) These changes are outlined in Table 2.
Many blamed Campbell for these changes, which he denied. The MoD claimed that “the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care”.(59)
3.2 THE ‘FEBRUARY DOSSIER’
In February 2003, the government released a second publication, which also focused on WMD in Iraq. However, there were fundamental flaws; a substantial amount of its wording came directly from the work of a postgraduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi. In addition to this, grammatical errors were reflected between the two documents. Like the September dossier, more words were ‘hardened’ for impact: these are shown in Table 3.
Table 2: A comparison of the changes made between the draft September dossier (up until 19thSeptember) and the final, publishedSeptember dossier (24th September).(42) The last column states how this change affected the meaning of the dossier
Table 3: Changes made to the February dossier. The flaws are listed, along with an example, and how this affected the meaning of the dossier(9, 28, 45)
3.3 DR KELLY’S ROLE
Dr Kelly described his involvement in the September dossier as “writing an historical account of the UNSCOM inspections and providing input into Iraq’s concealment and deception”.(54) He was shown a draft on 9th September 2002; Kelly believed that the wording was not incorrect, but had “a lot of spin on it”.(7) Despite this, he did not explicitly alert his seniors, and did not mention the 45-minute claim when attending a meeting on the dossier on 19th September.(7) However, it must be noted that the dossier was further altered after this meeting: Kelly might not have seen the more dramatic changes until it was published.
At first, Kelly showed some concern about the dossier’s exaggerations, and it appears that he distanced himself from its drafting. In an unpublished article, Kelly wrote that he believed that there was a long-term threat of WMD in Iraq, but that the immediate threat was only modest.(38) It is possible that when the exaggerations continued in the February dossier (Section 3.2), Kelly started to show more concern, thereby pushing him to voice his opinions.
3.4 ANALYSIS
The exaggerations and mistakes made in the dossier were glaringly obvious. It is now widely believed that the government, namely Alastair Campbell, did this in order to strengthen their case for the invasion of Iraq. Due to the seriousness of this allegation, any criticism might have had great repercussions, to which Kelly was not immune. This will be further explored in Section 4.
Overall, it is not possible to draw a definitive conclusion from this section alone. Rather, this provides a ‘foundation’ in order to contextualise and support subsequent evidence regarding the cause of Kelly’s death.
More fabricated photos (see info-graphic) have been used by al Qaeda groups and western media in the dirty war on Syria, the residents of the town of Madaya have been used as human shields by NATO backed terrorists.
Those same gangs used recycled photos to blame the Syrian Army and Hezbollah of starving civilians these photos are from from other years and other places
Several villages are in this stand-off situation, where both sides need to clear the way for aid convoys
Fortunately, on 8 January aid convoys broke through, reaching Madaya.
The Saud royal family are by far the world’s largest buyers of US weapons. The King of Saudi Arabia is by far the world’s richest person, with a net worth well over a trillion dollars; and, when his (Aramco’s) 260 billion barrels of oil reserves were valued at $100 per barrel, his net worth was over $15 trillion. The King has total control over the world’s largest (in terms of dollar-value) company: Aramco. Since 1980, the Saudi government has owned 100% of it; the Saudi government is totally under the King’s exclusive control. The King owns all that oil. Forbes and Bloomberg decline to estimate his wealth, because kings don’t want them to; but, clearly, it dwarfs that of anyone such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. And Gates and Buffett don’t possess the power to keep their wealth from becoming published, but the Saudi King does.
On 13 September 2010, Britain’s Telegraph headlined «US secures record $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia». On 28 January 2012, Dayton Business Journalbannered «Top 10 foreign buyers of US weapons», and Saudi Arabia was #1 that year, with $13.8 billion. #2 was UAE, with 10.4 billion. UAE is run by six royal families, all friends of the Saud family; and, like the Sauds, they follow the strictest, Wahhabist-Salafist, form of Islam, the type of Sunni Islam that’s preached by ISIS and by Al-Qaeda. Current ‘defense’ expenditure figures aren’t available; but, clearly, the Sauds are now fully embroiled in slaughtering Shiites both in Yemen and in Syria, and are buying far more US weapons today than they were before – the sum probably dwarfs any previous sales-volume.
It’s good business for the owners of US ‘Defense’ contractors. On 15 May 2015, Alex Kane at Alternet headlined «4 US Companies Getting Rich Off Gulf Arab Conflict With Iran», and the companies were: Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies. In 2015, lobbying for the «Defense» sector amounted to $96 million. $56 million of that was specifically on «Defense Aerospace». If the Sauds weren’t buying lots of that hardware, then some very wealthy Americans would be significantly less wealthy than they now are. It’s mutually beneficial. (Though not beneficial for the people those bombs and bullets are killing and maiming.)
The Sauds have long been courted by US Presidents; but, actually, it’s the US Presidents who have been courting the Saudi kings. The Washington Post headlined on 27 January 2015, «13 times US presidents and Saudi kings have met», and, since 1945, all US Presidents have privately met and spoken with the King of Saudi Arabia, except Truman and Ford. President Obama bowed deeply when meeting the Saudi King; but, this doesn’t mean that none of the others did; it means only that a cellphone-video happened to leak onto the Internet showing it – Obama’s bad luck.
When the US President meets the Saudi King, it’s not the US leader who has control over the two holiest sites in the world’s second-largest and fastest-growing religion, Mecca and Medina. It’s not the US President in whose general direction more than a billion people around the world ritually bow several times a day.
Long after a US President has become a former President, the Saudi King whom he has met can still be remaining as the Saudi King, until death. It’s sort of like the Papacy in that regard.
Iran is the center of Shia Islam. The Saud family doesn’t hide that they are anti-Shia and very anti-Iran. The approximately 10% to 15% of Saudi Arabia’s population who are Shiites are discriminated against, by law, in education, work, and other ways, which have caused it to be termed a religious «apartheid». On 26 May 2014, Catherine Shakdam at International Policy Digest wrote that, «Driven by political and territorial greed, the House of Saud has served as ground zero for anti-Shiism. The nefarious force behind the region’s sudden burst of ethnic-based violence and prejudices, disseminated by Saudi Arabia has sown the seeds of intolerance in the entire Middle Eastern region».
On January 3rd, Iranians rioted in Tehran against the Embassy of Saudi Arabia because a Shiite cleric in Saudi Arabia who had spoken out for equal treatment by the Sauds’ government, regarding both Sunnis and Shia, had been beheaded the day before, for having publicly urged such a thing.
The Saudi King had had 47 people executed on January 2nd, and this Shiite cleric was only one; but he had been speaking for all Shia in Saudi Arabia; so, Shia everywhere felt as if they were the targets – and they actually were, because when in 1744 Muhammad Ibn Saud and Muhammad Ibn Wahhab came to the agreement that started Saudi Arabia, part of that agreement was for the Saud clan to exterminate all Shia, and today’s Saud clan might actually have enough wealth to give that a try. They’re getting plenty of weapons from America to do it.
The US Democratic Party’s candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, said: «I don’t think it was a smart decision for them to make». She didn’t say it was a wrong decision, just that she didn’t think it was «smart». King Salman al-Saud will probably be understanding; after all, her suckers think that their Party is democratic in more than just its name – they don’t like head-choppers, particularly not dictatorial ones; and most of them don’t even think much of the Wahhabist religion, which wants all non-Wahhabists dead, not merely Shia dead.
By contrast, Republican candidates don’t need to pander at all about the matter, because they don’t consider themselves to be hung up on the ‘democracy’ thing; they call themselves «Republicans», which, even though it actually means the same thing (and so no democracy exists that isn’t a republic), makes it easier for stupid people to think it doesn’t.
Republican candidate Carly Fiorina said: «Saudi Arabia is our ally, despite the fact that they don’t always behave in a way that we condone… Iran is a real and present threat». She was singing King Salman’s song. She even condemned Iran’s condemnation of the Sauds’ execution of the Shia-rights cleric: «I take the Iranian condemnation with a huge grain of salt… This [in Iran] is a regime that tortures citizens routinely, that thinks nothing of executions, that still holds four Americans in jail».
Republican candidate Ben Carson said: «The Saudis have been one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, and I think it’s unfortunate that we put them in the position we have by showing the support to Iran that we have with this foolish deal» on Iran’s nuclear program. «There’s no reason for the Saudis to believe that we’re really on their side when we do things like that». If anything, he was trying to outdo Fiorina or anyone else.
The Saudi King terminated diplomatic relations with Iran over the matter.
US President Barack Obama, via his State Department, said in response to that: «We’re aware that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has ordered the closure of Iranian diplomatic missions in the Kingdom. We believe that diplomatic engagement and direct conversations remain essential in working through differences and we will continue to urge leaders across the region to take affirmative steps to calm tensions».
Here is a screen-shot of the end of Obama’s bow to the King of Saudi Arabia (it was telecast by Rupert Murdoch’s Republican ‘news’ operation, against Obama as being a closeted ‘Muslim’, not against King Saud, for his executions, slavery, or anything else; American politics is practically owned, on both its sides, by the Saud family, and Murdoch stirs bigotry – and religion, and religion-based hatreds – as much as the Sauds do; he’s even a business-partner with at least one of the royal Sauds, and this is what America’s ‘democracy’ has come to):
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .
It didn’t take long for IS (Islamic State) to find a new cartoon-style villain to fill the shoes of Mohammed “Jihadi John” Emwazi. The masked villain often appeared in high-value productions, narrating them with a perfect British accent, as the enemies of IS were slain in increasingly elaborate and equally gruesome manners.
Just as Jihadi John’s villainy reached a crescendo, the US claimed it targeted and killed him in a drone strike. Nothing resembling actual confirmation was produced afterward, and many questioned the value or impact of eliminating what was for all intents and purposes merely a figurehead.
Instead of actually identifying and dismantling IS on the battlefield, the US appears to be faux-fighting the organization in a public relations campaign mimicking the simplistic narratives children might see during a G.I Joe episode on Saturday morning:
“The bad guy died, we are winning.”
However, Western audiences have a shrinking attention span coupled with a growing awareness that everything they see on the news is likely at the very least, ‘spun.’ Despite this skepticism, US and European news services insist on serving up intelligence-insulting narratives seemingly designed for the minds of children, not educated, informed adults.
So just as Jihadi John’s memory began to fade from the collective narrative the US and European media pummels its audiences with daily, Jihadi John version 2.0 has been introduced. This IS doppelganger denizen appears almost identical to his predecessor, with the only difference being his brandishing of a pistol instead of a combat knife.
An English-speaking child, and a British-sounding militant who brings to mind ISIS’ previous propagandist, ‘Jihadi John,’ appear in the latest, chilling propaganda video from ISIS.
In the video, which has not yet been independently verified, the child says that the group will kill “kuffar’ — nonbelievers — “over there,” referring to the West, while the adult threatens and insults British Prime Minister David Cameron.
The speaker’s accent and dress bring to mind the previous — masked — face of the terror group, Mohammed Emwazi, otherwise known as “Jihadi John.” Emwazi was understood to have been killed in Raqqa late last year in an airstrike which specifically targeted the Briton. His absence lends credence to Western intelligence agencies’ belief that he is indeed dead.
Jihadi John 2.0 is still narrating IS’ high-value productions, which include gruesome executions, and the US and European media is still using him as the very convenient, extremely easy-to-hate face of IS. That Jihadi John 2.0 is taunting British Prime Minister David Cameron, is highly suspicious, considering that the British have been “fighting” IS for over a month now, but have conducted only 3 airstrikes, versus dozens of strikes daily by Russia accompanied by offensives carried out by a reinvigorated Syrian military on multiple fronts.
It’s almost as if this cartoon character, Jihadi John, is meant to intentionally offend Western sensibilities, provoking support for an otherwise unpopular and unjustifiable foreign military adventure in a country the US and UK do not otherwise belong meddling in.
Who is Jihadi John 2.0? Who Knows? Who Cares?
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who any of the incarnations of Jihadi John are. The role this figurehead plays in IS’ overall operation is actually superficial at best, and under closer scrutiny, aiding and abetting US and European meddling in the region by providing an overly obvious justification to continually perpetuate geopolitical dynamics in the region aimed at transforming the Middle East into a shape more suitable to Western interests.
That the United States invested time, money, and energy into allegedly killing “Jihadi John,” instead of identifying, exposing, and dismantling IS’ logistical networks, including those stretching into NATO territory itself in Turkey, seems to indicate the US is not serious at all about actually fighting or stopping IS, and instead, just interested in appearing to do so.
That CNN thinks this is a story instead of asking just why the US is not trying to get to the bottom of IS’ source of money, supplies, weapons, fighters and political support, tells you that CNN is not interested in journalism, but like Jihadi John himself (selves?) they are nothing more than propagandists attempting to manipulate, not inform the public’s perception.
Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Question 2– How many of those governments had nuclear weapons?
Answer— 0
Does that mean North Korea needs nuclear weapons to deter US aggression?
Yes and no. Yes, nuclear weapons are a credible deterrent but, no, that’s not why North Korea set off a hydrogen bomb last Tuesday. The reason North Korea detonated the bomb was to force the Obama administration to sit up and take notice. That’s what this is all about. North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, wants the US to realize that they’re going to pay a heavy price for avoiding direct negotiations. In other words, Kim is trying to pressure Obama back to the bargaining table.
Unfortunately, Washington isn’t listening. They see the North as a threat to regional security and have decided that additional sanctions and isolation are the best remedies. The Obama administration thinks they have the whole matter under control and don’t need to be flexible or compromise which is why they are opting for sticks over carrots. In fact, Obama has refused to conduct any bilateral talks with the North unless the North agrees beforehand to abandon its nuclear weapons programs altogether and allow weapons inspectors to examine all their nuclear facilities. This is a non-starter for the DPRK. They see their nuclear weapons program as their “ace in the hole”, their only chance to end persistent US hostility.
Now if we separate the “hydrogen bomb” incident from the longer historic narrative dating back to the Korean War, it’s possible to twist the facts in a way that makes the North look like the “bad guy”, but that’s simply not the case. In fact, the reason the world is facing these problems today is because of US adventurism in the past. Just as ISIS emerged from he embers of the Iraq War, so too, nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula is a direct result of failed US foreign policy in the ’50s.
US involvement in the Korean War precluded a final settlement, which means the war never really ended. An armistice agreement that was signed on July 27, 1953, ended the hostilities, but a “final peaceful settlement” was never achieved, so the nation remains divided today. The reason that matters is because the US still has 15 military bases in South Korea, 28,000 combat troops, and enough artillery and missiles to blow the entire country to smithereens. The US presence in South Korea effectively prevents the reunification of the country and a final conclusion to the war unless it is entirely on Washington’s terms. Bottom line: Even though the cannons have stopped firing, the war drags on, thanks in large part to the ongoing US occupation.
So how can the North normalize relations with the US if Washington won’t talk to them and, at the same time, insists that the North abandon the weapons program that is their only source of leverage? Maybe they should do an about-face, meet Washington’s demands, and hope that by extending the olive branch relations will gradually improve. But how can that possibly work, after all, Washington wants regime change so it can install a US puppet that will help create another capitalist dystopia for its corporate friends. Isn’t that the way US interventions usually turn out? That’s not compromise, it’s suicide.
And there’s another thing too: The leadership in Pyongyang knows who they’re dealing with which is why they’ve taken the hardline. They know the US doesn’t respond to weakness, only strength. That’s why they can’t cave in on the nukes project. It’s their only hope. Either the US stands down and makes concessions or the stalemate continues. Those are the only two possible outcomes.
It’s worth noting, that before Syria, Libya, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vietnam and the long catalogue of US bloodbaths across the decades, there was the Korean War. Americans have swept it under the rug, but every Korean, North and South, knows what happened and how it ended. Here’s a short refresher that explains why the North is still wary of the US 63 years after the armistice was signed. The excerpt is from an article titled “Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea”, at Vox World:
In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry….
According to US journalist Blaine Harden…
“Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War,told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops……
You can glimpse both the humanitarian and political consequences in an alarmed diplomatic cable that North Korea’s foreign minister sent to the United Nations… in January 1951:
“On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang …Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang….
The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable…Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000.”
Get the picture? When it became clear that the US was not going to win the war, they decided to teach “those rotten Commies” a lesson they’d never forget. They reduced the entire North to smoldering rubble condemning the people to decades of starvation and poverty. That’s how Washington fights its wars: “Kill ’em all and let God sort it out.”
This is why the North is building nukes instead making concessions; it’s because Washington is bent on either victory or annihilation.
So what does North Korea want from the United States?
The North wants what it’s always wanted. It wants the US to stop its regime change operations, honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework, and sign a non aggression pact. That’s all they want, an end to the constant hectoring, lecturing and interference. Is that too much to ask? Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010):
Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime. (“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)
There it is in black and white. The US can end the conflict today by just meeting its obligations under the terms of the Agreed Framework and by agreeing that it will not attack North Korea in the future. The path to nuclear disarmament has never been easier, but the chances of Obama taking that road are slim at best.
Question 2– How many of those governments had nuclear weapons?
Answer— 0
Does that mean North Korea needs nuclear weapons to deter US aggression?
Yes and no. Yes, nuclear weapons are a credible deterrent but, no, that’s not why North Korea set off a hydrogen bomb last Tuesday. The reason North Korea detonated the bomb was to force the Obama administration to sit up and take notice. That’s what this is all about. North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, wants the US to realize that they’re going to pay a heavy price for avoiding direct negotiations. In other words, Kim is trying to pressure Obama back to the bargaining table.
Unfortunately, Washington isn’t listening. They see the North as a threat to regional security and have decided that additional sanctions and isolation are the best remedies. The Obama administration thinks they have the whole matter under control and don’t need to be flexible or compromise which is why they are opting for sticks over carrots. In fact, Obama has refused to conduct any bilateral talks with the North unless the North agrees beforehand to abandon its nuclear weapons programs altogether and allow weapons inspectors to examine all their nuclear facilities. This is a non-starter for the DPRK. They see their nuclear weapons program as their “ace in the hole”, their only chance to end persistent US hostility.
Now if we separate the “hydrogen bomb” incident from the longer historic narrative dating back to the Korean War, it’s possible to twist the facts in a way that makes the North look like the “bad guy”, but that’s simply not the case. In fact, the reason the world is facing these problems today is because of US adventurism in the past. Just as ISIS emerged from he embers of the Iraq War, so too, nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula is a direct result of failed US foreign policy in the ’50s.
US involvement in the Korean War precluded a final settlement, which means the war never really ended. An armistice agreement that was signed on July 27, 1953, ended the hostilities, but a “final peaceful settlement” was never achieved, so the nation remains divided today. The reason that matters is because the US still has 15 military bases in South Korea, 28,000 combat troops, and enough artillery and missiles to blow the entire country to smithereens. The US presence in South Korea effectively prevents the reunification of the country and a final conclusion to the war unless it is entirely on Washington’s terms. Bottom line: Even though the cannons have stopped firing, the war drags on, thanks in large part to the ongoing US occupation.
So how can the North normalize relations with the US if Washington won’t talk to them and, at the same time, insists that the North abandon the weapons program that is their only source of leverage? Maybe they should do an about-face, meet Washington’s demands, and hope that by extending the olive branch relations will gradually improve. But how can that possibly work, after all, Washington wants regime change so it can install a US puppet that will help create another capitalist dystopia for its corporate friends. Isn’t that the way US interventions usually turn out? That’s not compromise, it’s suicide.
And there’s another thing too: The leadership in Pyongyang knows who they’re dealing with which is why they’ve taken the hardline. They know the US doesn’t respond to weakness, only strength. That’s why they can’t cave in on the nukes project. It’s their only hope. Either the US stands down and makes concessions or the stalemate continues. Those are the only two possible outcomes.
It’s worth noting, that before Syria, Libya, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vietnam and the long catalogue of US bloodbaths across the decades, there was the Korean War. Americans have swept it under the rug, but every Korean, North and South, knows what happened and how it ended. Here’s a short refresher that explains why the North is still wary of the US 63 years after the armistice was signed. The excerpt is from an article titled “Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea”, at Vox World:
In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry….
According to US journalist Blaine Harden…
“Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War,told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops……
You can glimpse both the humanitarian and political consequences in an alarmed diplomatic cable that North Korea’s foreign minister sent to the United Nations… in January 1951:
“On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang …Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang….
The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable…Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000.”
Get the picture? When it became clear that the US was not going to win the war, they decided to teach “those rotten Commies” a lesson they’d never forget. They reduced the entire North to smoldering rubble condemning the people to decades of starvation and poverty. That’s how Washington fights its wars: “Kill ’em all and let God sort it out.”
This is why the North is building nukes instead making concessions; it’s because Washington is bent on either victory or annihilation.
So what does North Korea want from the United States?
The North wants what it’s always wanted. It wants the US to stop its regime change operations, honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework, and sign a non aggression pact. That’s all they want, an end to the constant hectoring, lecturing and interference. Is that too much to ask? Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010):
Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime. (“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)
There it is in black and white. The US can end the conflict today by just meeting its obligations under the terms of the Agreed Framework and by agreeing that it will not attack North Korea in the future. The path to nuclear disarmament has never been easier, but the chances of Obama taking that road are slim at best.
If we choose to believe the report, it is really very bad news.
Good middle class jobs are continuing to decline. The new jobs are jobs that pay considerably less and often are part-time jobs devoid of benefits. Moreover, the new jobs are going to people outside the prime working age. The unavoidable conclusion is that for the majority of Americans, economic prospects are declining.
There is more bad news to be added to this dismal picture. The payroll jobs report provides both the actual numbers of jobs from the survey and the seasonally adjusted number. The news release is always the seasonally adjusted number, which is the number that my column examines. However, the seasonally adjusted number is concocted.
In past reports I have explained that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has a birth-death model that assumes new unreported jobs from new business startups exceed unreported jobs losses from business failures. John Williams (shadowstats.com) has shown that over-estimates from this model can add 750,000 non-existant jobs to the reported annual payroll jobs increase.
Seasonal adjustments can have the same effect. For example, the actual reported gain in new payroll jobs prior to seasonal adjustments was only 11,000. The seasonally adjusted gain was 292,000. In other words, seasonal adjustments accounted for 281,000 of the 292,000 reported jobs. There is a case for making seasonal adjustments, but not when seasonal adjustments account for 96% of the jobs gain.
Probably what we are observing is that the economic house of cards that the Federal Reserve has constructed together with financial deregulation depends heavily on reported jobs gains for its stability, and this stability is provided by the use of the birth-death model and seasonal adjustments to produce reassuring payroll jobs numbers.
As I have pointed out in numerous columns, if the reported jobs claims were real, the labor force participation rate would not be declining. If the reported jobs claims were real, people would be entering the work force attracted by employment opportunities. They would not be leaving the work force from discouragement and frustration in finding employment.
The Obama regime’s claim that the declining US labor force participation rate is the result of rising retirements is contradicted by the fact that the reported payroll jobs gains are primarily accounted for by the oldest age group, 55 and higher.
I am left with the conclusion that the 281,000 jobs produced by seasonal adjustments are the product of the misuse of seasonal adjustments in order to keep alive the appearance of economic recovery.
Keep in mind, also, that payroll jobs are the number of jobs, not the number of employed people. Many payroll jobs are part time with two or more being held by one person.
“I do not think we will have another war. Why would someone go to war? Thousands died, and are their descendants living better now?” – Milorad Dodik, Feb 19, 2015
The whole basis for Republika Srpska being an autonomous entity of its own accord was always going to be problematic. It was a child born of secessionist misfortune, and misfortune, as a mother, tends to give birth to many problematic children. The President of the Serb dominated entity, Milorad Dodik [Pictured left. Source: Wikipedia], is a creature of that tendency, a product of extremes, and behaves accordingly. Enlightenment is deemed a weakness, and the Dayton accords not the cure. The result is that Dodik feels he has room to operate.
The entire ceremonial he managed to precede over on January 9 had the fundaments of state hood and recognition. But given that such entities as Palestine have had a mountain to climb when it should have been a hill, the problems with Dodik will not be small. The republic is a messy, confused entity that cries out for cooperation rather than repulsion. Unfortunately for those in Bosnia, this means that nationalist ties are being reasserted. Some Croats within the federation have even gone so far as to pitch in their qualified, periodic support for Dodik as something of a lesser evil.
Dodik has been on record as believing that the Republic is a viable, autonomous entity with every right and credentials of being a state. This may well be fanciful, the sort of nonsense one expects from a mechanic who can envisage a machine being built without the necessary tools.
For one, the RS administrative identity exists alongside that of its sparring partner, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina comprised of Croats and Bosniaks. Neither is separate from the Bosnian entity in any true sense. To suggest that would imply true secession.
After the bitter civil wars that broke up the Federation of Yugoslavia, with the most savage fighting taking place in Bosnia, the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina was reached (21 November 1995). Annex 4 of the agreement designates the Republika Srpska as a composed legal and territorial entity, as it does the federation. It does still continue that dangerous tradition of a forced meshing of ethnicities and nationalities.
“Serbs would not have stayed here for more than 20 years without the RS,” claimed Dodik to Glas Srpske, the Banja Luka daily, “because majority of them would not have accepted Bosnia-Herzegovina. For that reason, the fight for the RS is the basic interest of all of us who live here.” His insistence on the existence on this hybrid entity is that it must be cherished, however imperfect, or, as he suggests, “even when not everything in it is exactly the greatest.”[1]
As much of the region depends on show and ceremony, Dodik was particularly peeved by the idea that RS day, January 9, could be dismissed by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina as having no valid basis. Who, he asked, “gave the right to a court to, with three votes of foreigners and two of Bosniak (Muslim) judges, outvote other judges and make a ruling.”
The response to the November ruling was to stage a defiant commemorative show of independence, with full pomp and ceremony. This also showed that Dodik was keen to ignore the reasoning of the court, which was that holding celebrations on January 9, in coinciding with an Orthodox Christian holiday, might be deemed discriminatory against Roman Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosniaks.
The other obvious point is the date’s other connotations. “January 9,” observed a member of the association of mothers from Srebrenica, “is the date which actually celebrates the decision to eliminate one people and to seize territory from Bosniaks” (Reuters, Jan 9).
Dodik’s colourful political existence is largely premised on the basis that Dayton’s arrangements were themselves strained. He breathes because the entity he represents has itself stemmed from various assumptions. From the start, the effort to confect an entity of entities within the Bosnian framework was bound to be, not merely problematic, but temporary. Dodik might well be regarded as extreme, but in the region, this is all relative.
Efforts persist in trying to see Bosnia-Herzegovina, or its variants, as a viable entity of itself. This is only plausible if one accepts that all its ethnic representatives deem it a lasting reality. On the evidence, many do not. The Serbs have always been questioning of it, but so have the Croats. At stages, they have agreed to divide it between themselves, in various degrees, excluding the Muslim contingent as politically meaningful representatives.
For all of that, neither the mother capitals, Belgrade or Zagreb, necessarily wish to see full involvement in it, whatever their public stances. The public position of Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić, who made a point joining the January 9 celebration, is ever smarmy: “Serbia is always there for you.” The Bosniaks are the ones who have been pushed into difficult trappings. This remains a tragedy among tragedies, and as ever, they risk getting the rum deal.
In this constitutional and political work of freak fiction, one that could be argued to be yet another dubious offspring in post-Yugoslav politics, the one with most daring may well win. Dodik may be on to something. It will be impossible to dismiss his claims in their entirety. He even has the Serbian Prime Minister stating that no one can abolish Republika Srpska with a decree, as it was never established by one to begin with.[2] The sad end of such a rationale, however, tends to the sanction of the bullet.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
Like macabre clockwork, prosecutors and their grand juries refuse to indict killer cops – most recently in the case of Tamir Rice. The Black response has been woefully inadequate. “Every announcement of a killer cop going free sets off a sad parade of ultimately useless activity.” These atrocities will not cease until “the police know they will answer for their crimes” and passive Black politicians are “consigned to political oblivion.”
“Every murder that goes unpunished brings greater urgency to the demand for black community control of the police.”
As expected, a grand jury in Cleveland, Ohio did not bring charges against the police officer who in 2014 shot and killed twelve year-old Tamir Rice. It is said that the judicial system is so biased in favor of prosecutors that they can “indict a ham sandwich.” In this case Cuyahoga county prosecutor Timothy McGinty wanted no such thing. For months he made his intent clear. His “expert” witnesses testified that the cop who shot Rice was justified in his actions. McGinty then strategically leaked their testimony to the corporate media who eagerly repeated their words without criticism or question.
McGinty acted in the same manner as his colleagues across the country. We can only assume they are unfazed or perhaps even happy when police kill black people. According to a recent report there were 1,134 fatal encounters with police in the United States in 2015. Three hundred of those persons were black, killed by police at twice the rate of whites and roughly once every 28 hours.
These numbers won’t change unless the police know they will answer for their crimes and politicians know they will pay if they don’t help to bring the system down. Every murder that goes unpunished brings greater urgency to the demand for black community control of the police. There is no other option. President Obama has the power of the Justice Department at his disposal. Yet he hasn’t seen fit to use it for Michael Brown or Eric Garner or any of the hundreds of black people killed by police during his presidency. Neither have any of the Democratic or Republican presidential candidates said anything about utilizing Department of Justice prosecutorial powers to stop this carnage.
“Black Lives Matter issued a statement but it was little more than a rehash of information we already had.”
Every announcement of a killer cop going free sets off a sad parade of ultimately useless activity. The tears, outrage, protests and condolences to family do no tangible good because there isn’t any commensurate demand or action behind them. Too many people who might play a role in stemming the death count have been allowed to get away with doing little or nothing.
McGinty holds an elective office. There should be no question in his or anyone else’s mind that the official sanction of Rice’s murder will bring defeat when he runs for re-election. Cleveland’s black mayor Frank Jackson and all other elected officials should be held to account as well. Jackson issued a mealy mouthed and deliberately obtuse statement about a review of police procedures but said nothing about a child’s killing going unpunished.
The mayor and his colleagues should also be in fear of job loss if they can’t even go through the motions of directly condemning McGinty and the grand jury decision. They should all make sure that McGinty is the soon-to-be former prosecutor. That is what politicians do all the time if they are so motivated.
There must be a line in the sand that no one is allowed to cross, no matter how seemingly sacrosanct their position or reputation. Black Lives Matter also issued a statement but it was little more than a rehash of information we already had. As usual they didn’t articulate a strategy or make a demand beyond what they have always done. This was their moment, a chance to prove detractors wrong. Instead they were true to form, spelling out obvious reasons for anger but backing it up with nothing but calls for petitions and federal investigations which end up meaning nothing.
The tears, outrage, protests and condolences to family do no tangible good because there isn’t any commensurate demand or action behind them.
The Black Lives Matter public relations effort has been so successful that no progressive group dares to meet or protest any issue without someone asking, “Will black lives matter be there?” If the statement about killer cops going free is all they can manage, no one should be unduly concerned if they are present or not.
It isn’t just white prosecutors who need to be called on the carpet when the police kill. Black people who are in a position to so much as use a bully pulpit against the enablers should have to explain themselves or leave their offices if they can’t muster any courage.
The Cleveland region has black city council people and state legislators and Congressional Black Caucus members. Aside from obvious talk of tragedy and condolence, they haven’t demanded justice for their constituents. Jackson and other black politicians should have been in the front row when protesters gathered outside of McGinty’s home. Anyone unwilling to make such a small effort should also be consigned to political oblivion.
“They fear loss of position and connections but they don’t fear the people.”
There is no need of black faces in high places if they can’t be counted on to make even small efforts to protest murder. If the mayor can’t join in saying that McGinty has to go then he ought to go too. Cleveland residents should make their way to his house and demand that he do something about McGinty and the whole rotten system he upholds.
The sad fact is that black so-called leaders live in fear. They fear loss of position and connections but they don’t fear the people. That ought to change and so should the way that the people interact with them. Black Cleveland should have been prepared for the non-indictment. That preparation should have included a list of people who must be gone from public life if the cops went punished.
It is doubtful whether Mayor Jackson or any other politicians want to see black community control of the police. That prospect must be very frightening to them because it would mean black community control of them. The McGintys of the world aren’t the only people who must be ousted. Jackson and his ilk must be placed on the chopping block too. That is the only message they understand.
Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.
Rwandan President Paul Kagame announced last week that he will seek a third term in office in 2017, following a December referendum allowing him to serve beyond the constitution’s previous two-term limit. World Policy Journal spoke with award-winning journalist Anjan Sundaram [pictured left] to discuss Kagame’s repressive regime and the silencing of independent journalists in the country. Sundaram’s new book, Bad News: Last Journalists in a Dictatorship, will be released on Tuesday, Jan. 12.
WORLD POLICY JOURNAL: What did you consider your role or your responsibility to be as a foreign journalist working in Rwanda, and how did the restrictions on the local journalists affect this?
ANJAN SUNDARAM: Local journalists and I worked in very different positions. The local journalists were fighting for their own freedom, and they were taking greater risks than I was because their lives were in danger and their families were in danger. They were hoping that their children could live in a better and freer Rwanda.
My own experience was rather different. I had sympathy for my students, so when my students were in trouble I wanted to help them. Of course I was in less danger than they were, but that also meant that I could take greater risks. So during most of my time in Rwanda I did not publish press articles for fear that I would be thrown out of the country and would not be able to help my colleagues and my students. And that was the biggest trade-off; I had to keep silent for a long time. This book is the result of the information and interviews and experiences I gathered during many years of silence in Rwanda, collecting information patiently trying to help [my journalists] as best as I could.
WPJ: You draw parallels between Rwanda’s current political dynamics and those that existed leading up to the genocide in 1994, particularly in terms of the enforcement of a single state-directed narrative and the silencing of alternative voices. What does this suggest about the degree of change that’s happened in the country since the genocide?
AS: On the surface it looks like there’s been a lot of change and a great deal of progress. There’s a lot of calm in Rwanda, it seems stable, and it’s held up by many foreign donors as the island of stability in a troubled region. But the reality is that the same structures that were in place prior to and during the genocide are still in place today, and they’re being reinforced. And this obviously does not augur well for the Rwandan people.
The level of control is extreme—there is no free press, there are no institutions to speak of. Last week President Kagame announced he would run for a third term, violating previous promises to respect what had been a two-term limit in the constitution. Now he’s saying the country needs him and people have asked him to stay on, like many dictators do. But really Rwanda today is a structurally unstable place and there’s very little likelihood that there’ll be a transfer of power without violence.
WPJ: Kagame played a prominent role at the time of the genocide, and he’s still the main figure in the country now. So how much of the problem is tied directly to him, and how much is just how the system operates?
AS: It’s all tied directly to him, he’s the central power in Rwanda and his power is almost absolute, and even his supporters—those who claim he is somewhat democratic and is doing good for Rwanda—would admit that his power is almost absolute. He’s responsible for all the structures that are in place today in Rwanda. And he is directly responsible for the continuation of the system of control that was used to conduct the genocide. He says he is now using that system, or a similar system, for good, but the risk is always that he might make a bad decision, or leadership in Rwanda might change and that the system in place is incredibly powerful and incredibly catastrophic, as we saw during the genocide in 1994. It’s all very well for Kagame to say he’s a good person and is leading the country with good intentions. The reality is that there are almost no checks and balances, and his government and he are capable of doing a great deal of harm, which goes unreported in Rwanda.
WPJ: Do you think Rwandan society has recovered to any extent from the genocide, to whatever degree that’s even possible, even if the state might not have not changed much at its core?
AS: I think there’s very little sense among Rwandans of the existence of individuals with rights, with possibilities. There’s a small elite in the country who feel the sense of possibility, but for the majority they are under the control of the state and their lives are highly restricted. I think there’s been a natural healing process in the last 20 years coming to terms with what’s happened and understanding why that’s happened, and there is a genuine desire among Rwandans that it does not happen again. I think that’s at the root of the obedience toward the current government—[the people] are worried that were they to oppose the government, or were there to be a rebellion, there would be renewed violence. They’re so traumatized by the experience of extreme violence that they accept a great deal of control and repression from the Rwandan state without fighting back or pushing back. The underlying tension that caused the genocide has not been addressed. Kagame’s solution was to say that ethnicity was an invention of the Belgian colonial powers that ruled Rwanda for many decades. And so there’s been a de facto ban on speaking about ethnicity in Rwanda. That unfortunately has not helped reconcile many of the tensions that led to the genocide, and in private Hutus and Tutsis still speak extremely violently and aggressively about the others’ ethnicity. So I would not say there has been a great deal of true reconciliation in Rwanda.
WPJ: Another issue that you bring up in the book is the role of foreign embassies in supporting the Rwandan government and its repression by providing large sums of aid. What do you think foreign governments should be doing about the current situation in Rwanda, and why are they not doing it?
AS: I think foreign governments are very well aware of the repression in Rwanda, I think there’s a perverse situation right now in which foreign governments are hard pressed to find aid that delivers results worldwide. And Rwanda is one of the few countries where aid plans are actually executed according to plan, largely because of the repressive government. For aid agencies this is a paradise—they come in with their plans and their plans are executed almost as they’ve been drawn up. It’s led to a perverse situation where aid agencies and foreign governments benefit from the repression, so they have no interest in disrupting it. Foreign aid officials are getting promotions and receiving plaudits for excellent management of aid programs, so the repression is actually serving foreign governments’ interests.
The real question is why is the world financing a dictatorship. In the case of an emergency there is no excuse for not intervening. But Rwanda is not in emergency today. The aid that is being provided is for long-term development, and most of it is being channeled through the Rwandan government or for government-supported projects. Foreign donors providing this aid could influence the Rwandan government a great deal but choose not to. Aid that is sent directly to NGOs and independent organizations on the ground would not reinforce the government’s repressive mechanisms in the same way. That already would always be a huge improvement in the way that aid is managed. I think donors or foreign governments have not even begun to assess that they might be doing harm and bolstering the Rwandan government. If there was a way to support the Rwandan people who need support—by alleviating poverty and improving health—without directly going through the Rwandan government, that might be a far more effective and less fraught way of providing foreign aid.
WPJ: The period that the book covers ends in late 2013. Has the state of independent journalism changed at all since that time?
AS: Not at all, there is no free press in the country today. When the Rwandan government held a referendum in the country to decide whether the two-term limit on presidents should be removed, apparently only 10 Rwandans in a country of more than 10 million opposed his run for a third term. This speaks volumes about how little freedom of speech there is in Rwanda, how few people actually dare to speak up. There are good journalists in Rwanda who know how journalism should be practiced, but unfortunately they’re all too scared. They’ve seen too many of their colleagues murdered, imprisoned, tortured, or having to flee the country to save their lives.
The Rwandan government does not understand the benefits that free press would provide to the country’s development. It doesn’t understand how free press needs certain protection and that a free press would criticize the government, and that this is a good thing. It also makes the argument that free press—particularly radio broadcasts—contributed to the genocide in 1994. This is a false argument because while the genocide was happening, any media that spoke up against the killing was shut down. There was only a single voice in the country, much as there is now. During the genocide, that single voice was advocating genocide, and people who opposed it were killed or imprisoned. There’s a very similar situation in Rwanda today, where the government’s voice is the only voice in the country, and journalists know that were they to oppose that voice, the consequences would be dire.
WPJ: Based on your description of the narrative that’s carefully crafted by President Kagame’s regime, your book represents a disruption to the way that the country is typically portrayed, both in domestic media in Rwanda and in international media. What do you think the response in Rwanda—and particularly the government’s response—will be?
AS: Historically the government has allowed English press to exist in Rwanda, even that which is critical of the government, because English is only spoken by a tiny minority of elite with very little incentive to disrupt the current power structure. I know that my book is being read in Rwanda because I am receiving emails from people who have somehow obtained copies. Because of Kagame’s announcement last week that he will stand for a third term, this is a particularly sensitive time in Rwanda, and the book is disruptive in that sense.
I thought there was almost an obligation to write about what I experienced, even if it’s merely to put on the record what happened. Most of the repression is forgotten. Most of the journalists who have been killed or exiled are simply forgotten. There are many great people who stood up to the Rwandan government, who saw the increasing repression, and knew that this was not the direction in which the country should be heading, particularly in a country with a history of genocide. They knew that the risk was great and they were brave enough to stand up to the government, and they suffered for it. And now they’re mostly forgotten. I wanted to correct that in some way, and record as much as I could of their stories.
A group of around 30 people protested on 6 January at the visit by Serb pilgrims to the church in the town of Gjakova/Djakovica, throwing eggs and ice when their bus arrived.
The bus was not hit and safely entered the church yard.
A Kosovo special police unit also put up a barricade which kept the protesters away from the church.
The Gjakova/Djakovica police commander, Kriste Gjokaj said that the protest ended without further incident.
“One protestor was arrested,” Gjokaj told BIRN.
In January last year, large demonstrations erupted after a Kosovo Serb minister, Aleksandar Jablanovic, described protesters who demonstrated against the pilgrims’ last visit as “savages”.
The protesters had thrown ice at the bus carrying the pilgrims, claiming that some of them had taken part in war crimes during the 1998-99 conflict in Kosovo.
Desperation does not even begin to describe the current plight of the House of Saud. Riyadh was fully aware the beheading of respected Saudi Shi’ite cleric Nimr al-Nimr was a deliberate provocation bound to elicit a rash Iranian response.
The Saudis calculated they could get away with it; after all they employ the best American PR machine petrodollars can buy, and are viscerally defended by the usual gaggle of nasty US neo-cons.
In a post-Orwellian world “order” where war is peace and “moderate” jihadis get a free pass, a House of Saud oil hacienda cum beheading paradise — devoid of all civilized norms of political mediation and civil society participation — heads the UN Commission on Human Rights and fattens the US industrial-military complex to the tune of billions of dollars while merrily exporting demented Wahhabi/Salafi-jihadism from MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) to Europe and from the Caucasus to East Asia.
And yet major trouble looms. Erratic King Salman’s move of appointing his son, the supremely arrogant and supremely ignorant Prince Mohammad bin Salman to number two in the line of succession has been contested even among Wahhabi hardliners.
But don’t count on petrodollar-controlled Arab media to tell the story.
English-language TV network Al-Arabiyya, for instance, based in the Emirates, long financed by House of Saud members, and owned by the MBC conglomerate, was bought by none other than Prince Mohammad himself, who will also buy MBC.
With oil at less than $40 a barrel, largely thanks to Saudi Arabia’s oil war against both Iran and Russia, Riyadh’s conventional wars are taking a terrible toll. The budget has collapsed and the House of Saud has been forced to raise taxes.
The illegal war on Yemen, conducted with full US acquiescence, led by — who else — Prince Mohammad, and largely carried out by the proverbial band of mercenaries, has instead handsomely profited al-Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP), just as the war on Syria has profited mostly Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria.
Three months ago, Saudi ulemas called for a jihad not only against Damascus but also Tehran and Moscow without the “civilized” West batting an eyelid; after all the ulemas were savvy enough to milk the “Russian aggression” bandwagon, comparing the Russian intervention in Syria, agreed with Damascus, with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
US Think Tankland revels in spinning that the beheading provocation was a “signal” to Tehran that Riyadh will not tolerate Iranian influence among Shi’ites living in predominantly Sunni states. And yet Beltway cackle that Riyadh hoped to contain “domestic Shi’ite tensions” by beheading al-Nimr does not even qualify as a lousy propaganda script. To see why this is nonsense, let’s take a quick tour of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province.
All Eyes on Al Sharqiyya
Saudi Arabia is essentially a huge desert island. Even though the oil hacienda is bordered by the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, the Saudis don’t control what matters: the key channels of communication/energy exporting bottlenecks — the Bab el-Mandeb and the Straits of Hormuz, not to mention the Suez canal.
Enter US “protection” as structured in a Mafia-style “offer you can’t refuse” arrangement; we guarantee safe passage for the oil export flow through our naval patrols and you buy from us, non-stop, a festival of weapons and host our naval bases alongside other GCC minions. The “protection” used to be provided by the former British empire. So Saudi Arabia — as well as the GCC — remains essentially an Anglo-American satrapy.
Al Sharqiyya — the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia — holds only 4 million people, the overwhelming majority Shi’ites. And yet it produces no less than 80% of Saudi oil. The heart of the action is the provincial capital Al Qatif, where Nimr al-Nimr was born. We’re talking about the largest oil hub on the planet, consisting of 12 crisscrossed pipelines that connect to massive Gulf oil terminals such as Dhahran and Ras Tanura.
Enter the strategic importance of neighboring Bahrain. Historically, all the lands from Basra in southern Iraq to the peninsula of Musandam, in Oman — traditional trade posts between Europe and India — were known as Bahrain (“between two seas”).
Tehran could easily use neighboring Bahrain to infiltrate Al Sharqiyya, detach it from Riyadh’s control, and configure a “Greater Bahrain” allied with Iran. That’s the crux of the narrative peddled by petrodollar-controlled media, the proverbial Western “experts”, and incessantly parroted in the Beltway.
There’s no question Iranian hardliners cherish the possibility of a perpetual Bahraini thorn on Riyadh’s side. That would imply weaponizing a popular revolution in Al Sharqiyya. But the fact is not even Nimr al-Nimr was in favor of a secession of Al Sharqiyya.And that’s also the view of the Rouhani administration in Tehran. Whether disgruntled youth across Al Sharqiyya will finally have had enough with the beheading of al-Nimr it’s another story; it may open a Pandora’s box that will not exactly displease the IRGC in Tehran.
But the heart of the matter is that Team Rouhani perfectly understands the developing Southwest Asia chapter of the New Great Game, featuring the re-emergence of Iran as a regional superpower; all of the House of Saud’s moves, from hopelessly inept to major strategic blunder, betray utter desperation with the end of the old order.
That spans everything from an unwinnable war (Yemen) to a blatant provocation (the beheading of al-Nimr) and a non sequitur such as the new Islamic 34-nation anti-terror coalition which most alleged members didn’t even know they were a part of.
The supreme House of Saud obsession rules, drenched in fear and loathing: the Iranian “threat”.
Riyadh, which is clueless on how to play geopolitical chess — or backgammon — will keep insisting on the oil war, as it cannot even contemplate a military confrontation with Tehran. And everything will be on hold, waiting for the next tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; will he/she be tempted to pivot back to Southwest Asia, and cling to the old order (not likely, as Washington relies on becoming independent from Saudi oil)? Or will the House of Saud be left to its own — puny — devices among the shark-infested waters of hardcore geopolitics?
Like the plantain weed, Plantago major, which so reliably matched the movements of European settlers through North America that it became known as “the white man’s footprint,” the cholera epidemics of the last 15 years have closely followed the growth and trajectories of United Nations troops.
Haitians have been infected not once, but at least twice with cholera from the UN. As of this writing, Haiti is smarting from a resurgence of cholera that began in September 2015. The infections are probably not due to the Nepalese strain of cholera that caused the October 2010 epidemic, but to newly introduced cholera from Bangladesh. Before I go into the details of this new epidemic, let us look more broadly at the UN peacekeepers’ role as a new vector of disease in the world.
Cambodian peacekeepers are deployed to northern Mali (Credit: UN Photo).
The UN currently runs 16 military occupations, with guidance and funds from major world powers and the so-called emerging powers. Multinational armies of blue helmets prey on various countries, especially in west and central Africa, mainly to safeguard the colonial interests of France and the United States. Emerging powers like Canada, Brazil, India, and South Korea tag along, salivating for seats on the UN Security Council, cheap labor, and contracts for lucrative projects such as mining, peacekeeper training, construction, hydropower, and textiles.
Altogether, the military occupation missions cost more than $8 billion per year. Their names are confusing interchangeable acronyms like MINUSCA, MINUSMA, MINUSTAH, UNMIL, and UNMISS, and it is quite appropriate that this should be so, because, everywhere the blue helmets go, their activities and atrocitiesare the same. These include assaults, rapes, arms trafficking, human trafficking, prostitution, and even murder. Except in Lebanon, where the actions of Hezbollah have kept the UN troops in check, cholera epidemics have flared up in every country where these troops have had a major presence since 1999 (Table).
Nepalese peacekeepers arrive in Juba, South Sudan, from Haiti (Credit: UN Photo).
Table. Top 10 military occupations by the UN during 2015-2016.
Name
Country
Budget
Mission year
Cholera year
MONUC/MONUSCO
Congo (DRC)
$1,332,178,600
1999
2001
UNAMID
Darfur
$1,102,164,700
2004
2006
UNMISS
South Sudan
$1,085,769,200
2011
2015
MINUSMA
Mali
$923,305,800
2013
2013
MINUSCA
Central African Republic
$814,066,800
2010
2011
UNIFIL
Lebanon
$506,346,400
2006
Predicted
UNOCI
Cote d’Ivoire
$402,794,300
2003
2011
MINUSTAH
Haiti
$380,355,700
2004
2010
UNMIL
Liberia
$344,712,200
2003
2003
UNISFA
Abyei (Sudan)
$268,256,700
2011
2015
An all-female police unit from Bangladesh arrives in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, in 2012 ostensibly to assist with post-earthquake reconstruction (Credit: Marco Dormino, UN Photo).
The above table suggests that, although Haiti’s 2010 cholera was the most scandalous and best-studied case of the UN’s introduction of an epidemic of disease into a country, it was probably not the first such infection nor the last. The reason for these infections is simple: the introduction of UN troops into countries represents a heavy burden on their infrastructure. The sanitation on UN bases is usually shoddy, and the untreated wastes of UN troops are routinely dumped into rivers. Furthermore, the largest contingents of UN troops come from Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, all of which are South Asian countries where cholera is endemic.
Having closely monitored Haiti’s epidemic and examined the others, it is evident that they follow a predictable pattern. The citizens of the invaded countries are left to live under appalling conditions, usually near to stagnant water and uncollected rubbish, while the UN and their associated medical non-governmental organizations (NGO) settle into the best living spaces and incessantly predict that the filth elsewhere will lead to a cholera epidemic for the native population. Simultaneously, contingents of UN troops are allowed to take leaves in their countries at the height of cholera epidemics, and they are subsequently reinserted, with little medical oversight, into the naïve countries. Whether or not this practice is deliberately intended to trigger epidemics, it does so as surely as an injection of a growing bacterial culture leads to an explosion of exponential bacterial growth in a previously sterile broth. In the end, the victims are blamed for their poor hygiene. The UN, which has caused the infection, not only gets away with it but recasts itself as a savior: a provider of oral cholera vaccines, which just happen to benefit its friends in academia with financial interests in the vaccines. It hardly matters that the vaccines are useless.
Cholera beds (Credit: Teseum).
One country, multiple infections
Recent research in Haiti has showed that, when some Haitian cholera patients excrete the cholera bacteria in their stools, these bacteria are accompanied by a virus (or phage) called ICP2, whose DNA sequence closely matches that of a virus from Bangladeshi patients. It is certain that the Bangladeshi virus got into Haiti on Bangladeshi strains of cholera bacteria excreted by Bangladeshi peacekeepers. According toAndrew Camilli and his colleagues at Tufts University, who first sequenced the genomes of these viruses: “these phages also travel with V. cholerae into the human host and are shed at appreciable amounts by infected patients, where like V. cholerae they could be spread to others via fecal-oral transmission.” Bacterial hosts of the ICP2 virus include not only Vibrio cholerae O1 but also V. cholerae O139, which originates from Bangladesh.
Scanning electron micrograph of V. cholerae at 22,399x magnification (Credit: Janice Carr, CDC; via Hukuzatuna).
This infection of Haiti with cholera from Bangladesh is terrible news, because the strains of V. cholera O1 and O139 from Bangladesh are notoriously pathogenic, usually carry multiple antibiotic resistances, and have strong epidemic and pandemic potential. Even after the epidemic brought from Nepal in 2010, Haitians were naïve to the Bangladeshi cholerae and only became exposed to these more harmful bacteria, starting in 2012, when the UN began to introduce female Bangladeshi peacekeepers into Haiti as a sort of gimmick.
Haitians wait for rehydration kits in Grand Salines during fall 2010 cholera outbreak (Credit: UN Photo).
According to the American researchers, a cocktail of three Bangladeshi cholera viruses (ICP1, ICP2, and ICP3) protects baby mice from becoming ill after they are deliberately infected with cholera. The researchers suggest that this viral cocktail might potentially prevent infections in the human relatives of cholera patients. On the other hand it might not, and instead make them very sick or even kill them. After all, humans aren’t the same as baby mice. In any case, such research that might potentially harm apparently healthy people would be highly unethical. But who will prevent it from being done on Haitians? Surely not the “Haitian National Ethics Committee” that has so far approved the work of the US researchers. And who will expel the UN once and for all and put an end to the continued infection of Haitians with new strains of cholera?
The World Health Organization (WHO), which is part of the UN, reported in 2015 that there are 1.4 to 4.3 million cases of cholera and 28,000 to 142,000 deaths yearly due to cholera infections. These numbers will surely continue to climb, proportionately with the ‘peacekeeping’ budgets. The WHO offers as its main solution the stockpiling of a large number of doses of oral cholera vaccines. Suppose for a moment that such vaccines should work — which they do not — would the UN then advocate universal cholera vaccination for the world’s poor so that they might safely drink water that has been fecally contaminated by their invaders? The UN has never been the highly ethical organization it was envisioned to become, but its enthusiastic advocacy of oral cholera vaccines does represent a new low.
One of many anti-UN graffitis in Haiti (Credit: MediaHacker).
The United States government has played a crucial role in the development of the complex and volatile political situation that now exists in the Middle East, and they have had a heavy hand in influencing the region since the first world war.
From propping up dictators to funding rebel groups for regime change, the U.S. and their allies have been creating monsters in the Middle East for generations. Western involvement in the region became more pronounced and more militarized during the Cold War, where the western allies and the Soviets fought proxy wars all over the world.
Afghanistan was one of the primary battlegrounds where these proxy wars took place, and at the time, the U.S. military was supplying militants in Afganistan with training and weapons to be used against the Soviets who also had political and strategic interests in the region.
The tactics used by the U.S. government extended far beyond traditional warfare and entered the realm of psychological warfare. From the Cold War period until very recently, the U.S. government spent millions of dollars supplying Afghan schoolchildren with propagandized textbooks that had violent images and militant jihadi teachings. The motive behind this propaganda was to actually radicalize the Afghan children so they would be more willing to fight against the Soviets when they got older.
According to the Washington Post, the textbooks were published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu and developed in the early 1980’s at a cost of $51 million.
The schoolbooks were even approved by the Taliban because the teachings were not far off from their own worldview.
This propaganda effort was only made public after the U.S. government went to war in Afghanistan in 2002 and it was revealed through the media that the western curriculum being taught in Afghan schools was actually promoting jihad.
At the time, President Bush was forced to respond to the scandal, and he promised that the curriculum would be changed to reflect a more peaceful worldview. Bush promised that 10 million textbooks with updated curriculum would be sent to Afghan schools and he claimed that the new books would teach “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.”
Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID’s Central Asia Task Force admitted that the textbooks were initially designed as anti-soviet propaganda.
“I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union,” Brown said.
Although, he added the ideas in the textbooks were updated for a new era.
“We turned it from a wartime curriculum to a peacetime curriculum,” he said of the new books.
The textbooks had reportedly portrayed the society in Afghanistan of having a “warrior culture” that was destined to fight a holy war.
Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan teacher who is very familiar with the books explained that “The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse.”
Many experts claim that these books are still in use today in Afghan schools, despite efforts from UNICEF to destroy them and replace them with their newer versions.
According to a recent report from the Post, Dana Burde, an assistant professor of international education at New York University, says the Taliban is reprinting and using old U.S.-sponsored jihadist books to influence children in areas where the militants still hold sway. Burde says she found multiple reprinted copies of some of the texts, including a 2011 edition in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.
As images of ISIS beheading their victims dressed in orange jumpsuits are plastered on televisions across the nation, and knowing that the US has been teaching this to children, hot air from the establishment decrying these acts rings hollow.
Any government who would use innocent children as pawns and teach them to become vicious killers, for their own personal gain, is far beyond criminal…it’s downright evil.
John Vibesis an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can purchase his books, or get your own book published at his website www.JohnVibes.com.
Two passengers, on Sunday 3rd January, who in good faith had paid their fares, had passed security checks, boarded the Aegean Airlines flight from Athens to Tel Aviv unexpectedly found themselves at the centre of a racist onslaught by belligerent Jewish-Israeli passengers accusing the two passengers of being ‘terrorists’ and demanding their removal from the plane.
The victims were attacked for one reason only- they are Palestinian … even though one carried an Israeli passport and the other an Israeli residence permit.
For almost 2 hours, the Palestinians made a stand on their rights to stay on the plane but as the harassment and humiliation intensified from the bullies who had increased from 5 to 70 in number, the Palestinians agreed to disembark,
The pilot said anyone who does not feel safe to fly should disembark and would not be compensated. But by that stage, the two men were in a poor state and wanted to leave themselves. The Guardian
They flew home unmolested the next day, ironically, on an El Al flight.
The rude and belligerent chutzpah of the Jewish-Israeli bullies is rooted in Israel’s unbridled apartheid policies under which all Palestinians suffer, in the impunity Israel enjoys to commit daily crimes against humanity and war crimes bestowed by western governments and, significantly, in the flexing of Israel’s armament muscles and influence.
Jeff Halper comprehensively reveals, in his book, War Against the People, how Israel’s standing as a key player in the armament and security industries is the reason why its appalling human rights record and brutal illegal occupation of Palestine are diplomatically ignored,
Israel has diplomatic relations with 157 countries, and virtually all the agreements and protocols Israel has signed with them contain military and security components.
Without an Occupation, Israel would have neither the drive nor the conditions by which to develop, deploy, test and export world-class weaponry and models of control; true, it would still need a military given the array of hostile forces in its region, but not one so exaggerated in power (nuclearized, for example), or demanding such aggressive international arms diplomacy.
In the realm of domestic security, the Israeli government and private companies work with security agencies the world over on issues of counter-terrorism, crime, border controls, prison management and disaster control. Israel’s experience in controlling the Occupied Territories and its population, as well as insulating its own population from resistance and terrorism, has become a major selling point.
This may go a long way to explain Israel’s influence over Greece. In 2012 and 2015, Greek authorities deliberately prevented the humanitarian Gaza flotillas from leaving Greek ports. Greece recently adopted a (non-binding) resolution to recognise a Palestinan state, however it had previously notified Netanyahu it would defy the EU guidelines of labelling illegal settlement products, and the so called left-wing Tsipras endorsed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
And so the question lingers, to what degree did Greco-Israeli politics influence the Aegean Airlines decision?
Even though, the CEO, Dimitrios Gerogiannis sent an apology to the Palestinian Authority, it can’t erase a new potential threat to international travel.
By compromising its corporate integrity and responsibility, Aegean Airlines showed poor judgement and consequently the incident has set a dangerous precedent for international travel.
It is not only damaging to an airline’s reputation to be taken hostage by passengers calling the shots as to who they deem suitable to fly with them, but places all passengers rights and safety, anywhere, on any plane, at risk to racial profiling and discriminatory demands at the whim of bigots such as the arrogant Jewish- Israeli passengers on Aegean Airlines.
Dr. Vacy Vlazna is Coordinator of Justice for Palestine Matters. She was Human Rights Advisor to the GAM team in the second round of the Acheh peace talks, Helsinki, February 2005 then withdrew on principle. Vacy was coordinator of the East Timor Justice Lobby as well as serving in East Timor with UNAMET and UNTAET from 1999-2001.
Despite a few superficial similarities, the difference between the rebellion in eastern Ukraine and armed Oregon ranchers standing off with the US federal government couldn’t be greater.
A lack of understanding regarding the nature of power and how it is brokered has led to many mistakenly believing there is any merit to what the Oregon ranchers are doing, besides providing an example of precisely how not to stand up against increasingly tyrannical special interests. This is not to say the ranchers, or even Occupy Wall Street should not be standing up against the US government, it is just that they are going about it in completely the wrong way – compounding their problems, not solving them.
Perhaps by examining the numerous and critical differences between the Donbass fighters and the Oregon ranchers, readers can see the chasm between the two, and perhaps how, in certain aspects, to bridge that chasm.
Donbass vs. Oregon
1. Backing: Donbass has the backing of a superpower – Russia. This includes substantial backing across the media, in terms of political support, and logistical and military support ranging from the implicit threat of Russian retaliation should Kiev and its NATO backers step over certain lines, to – according to NATO – direct military assistance.
In all likelihood, the only superpower backing the Oregon ranchers is the US federal government itself – not a single militia in the US has gone un-infiltrated in the last several decades. Geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser in a recent piece admits he is unsure as to the true motives and intentions of the Oregon ranchers, but has dug up a significant amount of information casting serious doubts over not only their objectives, but the very character of its leadership.
2. Weaponry: The Donbass fighters have a standing army which includes machine guns, military-grade rifles, rockets, missiles (including anti-aircraft systems), artillery, counter-battery radar, and even main battle tanks. They have the infrastructure to resupply front lines with food, weapons, and fuel, and the ability to protect their logistical lines leading to and from areas of engagement.
The Oregon ranchers have 5.56mm rifles, which can be quickly overwhelmed by numerical superiority, superior firepower, and armor – of which the federal government has all in much abundance.
3. Supporting Networks: The Donbass fighters are but one factor in a much larger eastern Ukrainian rebellion. They function under their own government which controls all infrastructure from electricity to water to communications in the region. They also have a functioning economy and are receiving significant humanitarian aid from neighboring Russia.
The Oregon ranchers have some boxes of supplies they bought from the very Fortune 500 corporations that created the overbearing regime they are “standing up” against. Their failure to build a sufficient and sustainable infrastructure to underpin their armed confrontation illustrates a significant lack of foresight and strategic thinking, a lack of thinking not shared by the federal government it has taken up arms against.
4. Endgame: The Donbass fighters are part of a larger movement seeking to create an entirely self-sufficient, functional political entity. In many ways they have already succeeded in doing this. They are doing so with overwhelming military force, and tremendous popular support both locally and abroad.
Image: The rebels’ “New Russia” vision may be far flung, but they have already achieved a large degree of self-autonomy and have shown Kiev that dictating the future of eastern Ukraine will not be done without a fight.
The Oregon ranchers have already painted themselves into a corner with their polarizing ideology and the outright racism and bigotry exhibited by several of their members. They’ve automatically alienated themselves from many other Americans who might have otherwise supported them if they used more sensible methods and had an actual plan worth supporting.
5. Understanding: The fighters in Donbass know their enemy lies far beyond the Ukrainian soldiers they face on the front lines. They know it ultimately goes even beyond Kiev – all the way to Brussels, NATO, and even Washington, and they’ve been clearly factored this into their strategy from day-one.
The problem the Oregon ranchers are standing up to is not just a federal agency dealing with land use – it is a problem that can be traced all the way back to Washington and Wall Street. A strategy that has not accounted for this or developed any sort of plan to confront, is doomed to fail.
What Those Supporting the Oregon Ranchers Should Do
While lengthy, the article, “Showdown in Oregon: How to – and How Not to Fight Tyranny,” introduces readers to the very playbook used by empires and rebels alike regarding insurgency and counterinsurgency. It lays out how real resistance – or the rolling back of an entrenched system -requires more than just armed force. It requires socioeconomic considerations, control over crucial infrastructure, economic plans, education, inclusive political agendas, and much more.
The playbook is essentially the recipe for wresting power away from one party, and placing it into the hands of another and would work just as well for the “good guys” as it has for the “bad guys.” And while much of it requires patience and hard work, it should be noted that the people of Donbass have followed all of the prescribed actions for taking and keeping power and have succeeded, while groups like the Oregon ranchers and Occupy Wall Street have followed virtually none of them and have failed both utterly and repeatedly.
To point out the shortcomings of the Oregon ranchers or the Occupy Wall Street protesters is not saying that people living under a truly unjust system should not stand up against it. It is saying instead that they have gone about it in demonstrably the wrong way. They are now being handed the very playbook that has been used against them. It is up to them to stop playing make-believe, to pick it up and read it, and more importantly, begin realistically applying it.
Unique among the countries on earth, the US government insists that its laws and dictates take precedence over the sovereignty of nations. Washington asserts the power of US courts over foreign nationals and claims extra-territorial jurisdiction of US courts over foreign activities of which Washington or American interest groups disapprove. Perhaps the worst results of Washington’s disregard for the sovereignty of countries is the power Washington has exercised over foreign nationals solely on the basis of terrorism charges devoid of any evidence.
Consider a few examples. Washington first forced the Swiss government to violate its own banking laws. Then Washington forced Switzerland to repeal its bank secrecy laws. Allegedly, Switzerland is a democracy, but the country’s laws are determined in Washington by people not elected by the Swiss to represent them.
Consider the “soccer scandal” that Washington concocted, apparently for the purpose of embarrassing Russia. The soccer organization’s home is Switzerland, but this did not stop Washington from sending FBI agents into Switzerland to arrest Swiss citizens. Try to imagine Switzerland sending Swiss federal agents into the US to arrest Americans.
Consider the $9 billion fine that Washington imposed on a French bank for failure to fully comply with Washington’s sanctions against Iran. This assertion of Washington’s control over a foreign financial institution is even more audaciously illegal in view of the fact that the sanctions Washington imposed on Iran and requires other sovereign countries to obey are themselves strictly illegal. Indeed, in this case we have a case of triple illegality as the sanctions were imposed on the basis of concocted and fabricated charges that were lies.
Or consider that Washington asserted its authority over the contract between a French shipbuilder and the Russian government and forced the French company to violate a contract at the expense of billions of dollars to the French company and a large number of jobs to the French economy. This was a part of Washington teaching the Russians a lesson for not following Washington’s orders in Crimea.
Try to imagine a world in which every country asserted the extra-territoriality of its law. The planet would be in permanent chaos with world GDP expended in legal and military battles.
Neoconned Washington claims that as History chose America to exercise its hegemony over the world, no other law is relevant. Only Washington’s will counts. Law itself is not even needed as Washington often substitutes orders for laws as when Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State (an unelected position) told the President of Pakistan to do as he is told or “we will bomb you into the stone age.” [1]
Try to image the Presidents of Russia or China giving such an order to a sovereign nation.
In fact, Washington did bomb large areas of Pakistan, murdering thousands of women, children, and village elders. Washington’s justification was the assertion of the extra-territoriality of US military actions in other countries with which Washington is not at war.
As horrendous as all of this is, the worst of Washington’s crimes against other peoples is when Washington kidnaps citizens of other countries and renditions them to Guantanamo in Cuba or to secret dungeons in criminal states such as Egypt and Poland to be held and tortured in violation both of US law and international law. These egregious crimes prove beyond any doubt that the US government is the worst criminal enterprise that has ever existed on Earth.
When the criminal neoconservative George W. Bush regime launched its illegal invasion of Afghanistan, the criminal regime in Washington desperately needed “terrorists” in order to provide a justification for an illegal invasion that constitutes a war crime under international law. However, there were not any terrorists. So Washington dropped leaflets over warlord territories offering thousands in dollars in bounty money for “terrorists.” The warlords responded to the opportunity and captured every unprotected person and sold them to the Americans for the bounty.
The only evidence that the “terrorists” were terrorists is that the innocent people were sold to the Americans by warlords as “terrorists.”
Yesterday Fayez Mohammed Ahmed Al-Kandari was released after 14 years of torture by “freedom and democracy America.” The United States military officer, Col. Barry Wingard, who represented Al-Kandari said that “there simply is no evidence other than he is a Muslim in Afghanistan at the wrong time, other than double and triple hearsay statements, something I have never seen as justification for incarceration.” Much less, said Col. Wingard, was there cause for a litany of multi-year torture in an effort to force a confession to the alleged offenses.
Do not expect the Western prostitute media to report these facts to you. To find out, you must go to RT or to Stephen Lendman or here to this site.
The presstitute Western media are part of Washington’s criminal operation.
The biggest fireworks on New Year’s Eve weren’t any glowing in the night sky above millions of giddy revelers worldwide, but instead came tucked away in another batch of Hillary’s infamous emails made public — and the contents are so explosive, she could be charged with war crimes.
Buried in the former Secretary of State’s emails are evidence of extrajudicial killings by U.S.-allied rebels, the embedding of al-Qaeda affiliated fighters amongst those same rebel forces, and even substantiation that Western motives for warring with Libya had more to do with gold, silver, and oil than anything else. Most crucially, because this evidence was presented in emails addressed to Clinton, the Secretary knew all of this — but did nothing to sound the alarm.
“Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting […] An extremely sensitive source added that rebels are receiving direct assistance and training from a small number of Egyptian Special Forces units, while French and British Special Operations troops are working out of bases in Egypt, along the Libyan border. These troops are overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels,” stated longtime Clinton family friend, unofficial researcher for the Secretary, Sidney Blumenthal, in an email dated March 27, 2011. [All emphasis in the email excerpts has been added.]
Besides the extrajudicial nature of such executions, “foreign mercenaries” — contrary to what the term implies — weren’t necessarily fighters. In fact, rebels often used the term to describe black Libyan civilians and sub-Saharan contractors “favored by Gaddafi in his pro-African union policies,” who were then targeted as loyalists and subjected to racial and ethnic cleansing. A most disturbing example of this occurred as a result of revenge when the town of Tawergha, which had a population of around 30,000, was wiped off the map by NATO-backed forces from the neighboring town of Misrata — effectively making it a ghost town by August 2011. According to the Telegraph:
“After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, hundreds of migrant workers from neighboring states were imprisoned by fighters allied to the new interim authorities. They accuse the black Africans of having been mercenaries for the late ruler. Thousands of sub-Saharan Africans have been rounded up since Gaddafi fell in August.”
Amnesty International discovered the rebel and militia groups had tortured and abused prisoners in ten of the eleven facilities they operated in after the downfall of the regime left virtually no police or military. These very militias had long been rumored to be infiltrated by al-Qaeda — but as the same email revealed, there were “continuing reports that radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the [transitional government] and its military command.” In spite of this, an impressive list of weaponry, including tanks, antiaircraft batteries, and a “seemingly endless supply of AK-47 assault rifles and ammunition”, were reaching rebels thanks to the oversight of U.S.-allied forces, as shown above.
On the subject of the oft-debated gold, an email dated April 2, 2011, stated sensitive sources with ties to Gaddafi claimed the government possessed “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver.
“This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc.” And according to those sources, “French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Also listed as motive for Sarkozy’s involvement is a “desire to gain a greater share of Libya [sic] oil production.”
All of this information, sent via Clinton’s unofficial and non-secure personal email account, could have been technically available to anyone with the help of a hacker. Revelations of her prior knowledge — especially concerning the extrajudicial killings by rebels backed by the U.S. and its allies — cannot be overemphasized.
“They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff,” said former U.S. Attorney, Joe DiGenova, during a radio interview Tuesday. “And it’s going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days […] I believe that the evidence the FBI is compiling will be so compelling” that charges must be brought by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, he explained; because if Lynch chooses not to indict Clinton, “It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”
It was October 12, 2001, barely a month following the most devastating terrorist attack on U.S. Soil in that country’s history.
Radio station KPFA in Berkeley, California was broadcasting an interview with Mike Ruppert, an investigative journalist, whistle-blower and former LAPD narcotics detective. Ruppert was broaching the subject of fore-knowledge of the September 11 attacks. The discussion (see the transcript here) presented one of the first bullet-proof arguments outlining U.S. Government foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks.
Following this broadcast, talks followed. One of the most important being Mike Ruppert’s talk at Portland State University in Oregon, entitled “The Truth and Lies of 9-11.”
Guns and Butter broke important new journalistic ground at a critical time in world history. And according to the current host of the show, the driving force behind Guns and Butter was Kellia Ramares.
That broadcast journalist passed away in August of 2015 at the age of 60.
Kellia Ramares would start breaking stories related to environmental collapse, peak oil, the so-called War on Terrorism, and alternative economics. She has contributed to a number of independent media outlets including The Women’s International News Gathering Service (WINGS), Online Journal, Free Speech Radio News, National Native News, Workers Independent News, Global Public Media, and Global Research.
This week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour is dedicated to the memory of reporter that embodied the spirit of independent journalism, in a media age when such devotion to the truth can be an impediment to media careers. Indeed, she struggled to make a living from her immense output of high quality work.
The links below provide samples of her work, starting with an archive of her contributions to Global Research, including a talk and a handful of interviews which aired over the last year on the radio show.
Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border. It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.
This is the third of four articles analyzing the new US Department of Defense Law of War Manual.
The Department of Defense (DOD) Law of War Manual represents the most advanced ideological expression of the striving of US imperialism to dominate and control the entire world by means of military force.
By authorizing the Pentagon to occupy, wage war against and impose its own version of “law” in every corner of the planet, the DOD manual merely formalizes the world-hegemonic agenda of US imperialism and points to its logical endpoint.
“US capitalism is up against the same problems that pushed Germany in 1914 on the path of war. The world is divided? It must be redivided. For Germany it was a question of ‘organizing Europe.’ The United States must ‘organize’ the world. History is bringing humanity face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism.” This was written by the founder of the Fourth International, Leon Trotsky, in 1934.
From the mid-1970s onward, the US ruling class has engaged in a relentless militarization drive aimed at overcoming through armed force its economic decline.
This was also foreseen by Trotsky, who wrote:
“In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”
The Law of War Manual, which elaborates protocols for military operations in every corner of the globe by the Pentagon and its proxy forces, amounts to a manifesto for this process, set down in legal jargon. If the guidelines laid out in the manual are allowed to be implemented—that is, if the international working class does not intervene in time on the basis of a revolutionary program—then humankind faces a future dominated by concentration camps, slaughter on an unprecedented scale, and, ultimately, a nuclear holocaust.
In essence, the DOD manual represents a comprehensive statement of the only “solution” to the world crisis that the imperialist cliques in Washington and on Wall Street are capable of offering.
Total war
The first two articles in this series have drawn the parallels between the Department of Defense Law of War Manual and the legal and political ideology of Nazi Germany. It has been shown that the very same fascist conceptions rejected by leading American jurists at the Nuremberg trials have, in the form of the DOD manual, been codified as official state policy at the highest levels of the American government.
Later sections of the DOD manual, those covering the practices of US military operations, make clear that the scorched earth methods employed by the Nazis against the populations of Europe, the Soviet Union and North Africa are now embraced and defended by the Pentagon high command.
The manual overturns central tenets of international law designed to place restraints on the use of military violence. On the basis of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of total war as “a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded,” one can state without hesitation that total war has become the central policy of the DOD.
Every form of military activity conventionally associated with total war—a concept that emerged during the 19th century before finding its consummate expression in the mayhem and destruction perpetrated by both the fascist and “democratic” imperialist governments during the Second World War—is explicitly or implicitly allowed by the Pentagon guidelines.
Every nominal restriction on the DOD’s war-making powers included in the manual is accompanied by caveats that confer virtually unlimited discretion on US military commanders to employ violence in the service of US strategic aims. The manual carefully avoids any language that might discourage commanders from planning offensive operations. There are gaping loopholes in every section designed to instill confidence that there will be no penalty for the indiscriminate use of force.
The manual authorizes US commanders to engage in strategic bombing, attacks on civilian commercial infrastructure, blockades and sieges. It authorizes the establishment of mass detention and forced labor camps.
Hiroshima in 1945
Of course, throughout its history, US imperialism has committed horrific violations of international laws along these lines, carrying out collective punishment, mass slaughter of populations, and the destruction of urban areas in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and, most recently, Iraq.
The military campaign launched against Iraq in 2003 reduced one of the most advanced economies in the Middle East to a level of social development comparable to that of the poorest countries in the world. Some 4-5 million Iraqis were killed, displaced or disappeared as a result of the US war and occupation. More than half of Iraqi doctors were killed or forced to flee the country. Reports published in 2007 by Iraq’s Statistical Bureau showed that, four years after the war was launched, fully 43 percent of Iraqis were living in “absolute poverty,” without reliable access to food, housing or clothing.
Prior to the release of the DOD manual this year, however, the US high command employed such methods in defiance of its own regulations, which still included clearly worded prohibitions against wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure and populations. The last comprehensive document on military law issued by the US Department of Defense, the 1956 US Army Field Manual on the Law of Land Warfare, still maintained that military operations could not be launched if it was known in advance that they would lead to large-scale civilian casualties.
While including formal prohibitions against the slaughter of civilians similar to those contained in the 1956 document, the new manual provides conceptual loopholes based on notions of “military necessity,” “expected military advantage,” etc.
The publication of the DOD manual is thus enormously significant as an official assertion by the US ruling elite of its “right” to demolish entire societies and peoples in pursuit of its political goals. Undoubtedly, the DOD manual was crafted with an eye toward legalizing, after the fact, the crimes committed against Iraq by US imperialism.
Under the manual’s guidelines, direct mass killing of civilians is effectively legalized, so long as the relevant US military officers consider that attacks around or against civilian targets are weighed “in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.” (P. 187)
Predator drone firing a Hellcat missle
Commanders are authorized to conduct operations that they know will lead to large numbers of civilian deaths, as long as their subjective assessment finds that such operations contribute to “the broader imperatives of winning the war.” This applies even when the “military advantage” to be gained from a proposed attack could not be understood by an “outside observer,” i.e., on the basis of any objective or universal criteria.
“The military advantage expected to be gained from an attack might not be readily apparent to the enemy or to outside observers because, for example, the expected military advantage might depend on the commander’s strategy or assessments of classified information,” the manual states. (P. 213)
“The weighing or comparison between the expected incidental harm and the expected military advantage does not necessarily lend itself to empirical analyses,” the document adds. (P. 128)
“In less clear-cut cases, the question of whether the expected incidental harm is excessive may be a highly open-ended legal inquiry, and the answer may be subjective and imprecise,” the manual declares. (P. 245)
In defining what constitutes a legitimate military target, DOD employs a definition that is so broad as to encompass the entire economy and civilian population of enemy states. The manual authorizes destruction of basic infrastructure, including housing stock, power generation facilities, water facilities, and food supply chains of enemy states. Any object that contributes to the “war-fighting capacity” of the enemy nation, even in an indirect manner, is declared by the manual to be a legitimate target. (P. 206)
“The term ‘military objective’ means combatants and those objects during hostilities which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the war-fighting or war-sustaining capability of an opposing force,” the manual reads.
It is not necessary that the object provide immediate tactical or operational gains or that the object make an effective contribution to a specific military operation. Rather, the object’s effective contribution to the war-fighting or war-sustaining capability of an opposing force is sufficient… The advantage need not be immediate. (P. 210)
The law of war does not require that attacks on a military objective be conducted near ongoing fighting, in a theater of active military operations, or in a theater of active armed conflict. (P. 199)
In a critique of the target selection practices called for by the manual, entitled “The Defense Department Stands Alone on Target Selection,” Professor Adil Haque of the Rutgers School of Law-Newark notes that the manual effectively authorizes US commanders to carry out attacks regardless of the civilian death toll that is likely to result.
“A deeply troubling provision in the Defense Department’s new Law of War Manual suggests that commanders are not legally required to minimize civilian casualties when selecting between different targets,” Haque writes. “The United States is not legally required to select targets so as to reduce collateral harm to civilians.”
Large sections of the manual are devoted to siege, enforced starvation and occupation of densely populated urban areas. It authorizes the erection of ghettos and security cordons to restrict the movement of civilians.
“Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare,” the DOD manual states. (P. 291) “In particular, it is permissible to seek to starve enemy forces into submission.”
During siege warfare, US military commanders are authorized, among other things, to destroy supply lines that are relied on by the civilian population for food and other essential goods. “States may institute general food control programs that involve the destruction of crops and the adequate provision of the civilian population with food,” the manual reads in the section entitled “Starvation of Enemy Forces Not Prohibited.” (P. 1,037)
It advises US officers to allow passage of “certain categories of civilians,” implying that much of the civilian population can be left for dead inside the encircled area. Commanders are authorized to completely isolate urban areas, refusing the movement of even the most basic humanitarian goods into the siege zone.
“A commander of an encircling force is not required to agree to the passage of medical or religious personnel, supplies, and equipment,” the manual states. (P. 316)
The implications of this doctrine were already demonstrated in the US military’s 2004 siege of Fallujah in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi men between the ages of 15 and 55 were prevented from fleeing the city prior to a devastating US bombardment that destroyed some 60 percent of the city’s buildings, irradiated the entire area with toxic munitions byproducts, and permanently reduced the population by as much as 50 percent.
The manual authorizes the use of illegal weapons, another practice commonly understood as a feature of total war, including cluster bombs and nuclear weapons, against a range of “military objectives,” including “mountain passes, hills, defiles, and bridgeheads, villages, towns, or cities” whose seizure is militarily important. (P. 215)
“Under certain circumstances, it may be advantageous to use cluster munitions,” the document reads. “The United States has determined that its national security interests cannot be fully ensured consistent with the terms of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.”
Employing a formula that becomes all too familiar to any reader of the manual, the document openly authorizes use of nuclear weapons based on calculations of “military advantage.”
“Attacks using nuclear weapons must not be conducted when the expected incidental harm to civilians is excessive compared to the military advantage expected to be gained,” the document states. (P. 420)
Such formulations amount to a green light to do anything. Would the DOD high command consider the destruction of China’s key military and economic infrastructure to be militarily advantageous? Of course, and therefore nuclear attacks would be justified.
In fact, the DOD’s Air Sea battle plan envisions a crushing first strike against the Chinese mainland, using a level of force so overwhelming as to prevent any possibility of retaliation by the Chinese military.
Mass detention and concentration camps
Brushing aside democratic legal principles that have been developed over centuries, the manual asserts the absolute power of the US military-security apparatus to detain civilians anywhere on the planet. “Detention is fundamental to waging war or conducting other military operations,” the Pentagon lawyers assert in the opening lines of the section “Detention: Overview and Baseline Rules.” (P. 515)
Prisoners in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, 1938
While the executive branch has already asserted similar prerogatives with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, it remains significant that the DOD now openly maintains its own sweeping powers to act as an independent branch of government, exercising essentially limitless authority.
The manual maintains that the Defense Department may re-interpret and negate international agreements that prohibit extra-legal arrests and detentions, upholding the unlimited right of the American national state to nullify well-established international laws.
The DOD lawyers go so far as to cite relevant portions of international law that directly contradict their own positions before sweeping them aside as incompatible with the US government’s interpretations.
“Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful,” a passage from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), reprinted in the manual, states. (P. 50f)
The document then declares that the US government has “understood” such prohibitions not to apply to its own policies. As far as DOD and the US government are concerned, the manual makes clear, the content of international laws is determined by the way in which such laws are re-understood by top US military attorneys and bureaucrats.
“For example, the right to challenge the lawfulness of an arrest before a court provided in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would appear to conflict with the authority under the law of war to detain certain persons without judicial process or criminal charge,” the manual reads.
However, the United States has understood Article 9 of the ICCPR not to affect a State’s authorities under the law of war, including a State’s authority in both international and non-international armed conflicts to detain enemy combatants until the end of hostilities. (P. 50)
The manual goes on to outline authorizations for DOD to create specific legal instruments in order to overcome any remaining legal obstacles to its detention powers, allowing for the creation of “Ad Hoc Legal Instruments or Frameworks” and “Special Courts.”
According to the manual, “Detaining Powers” may segregate detainees in prison camps based on racial and ethnic criteria. “Detainees may be segregated into camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language, and customs, and the Detaining Power may use other criteria to segregate detainees for administrative, security, intelligence, medical, or law enforcement purposes.” (P. 498)
US military authorities are empowered to carry out mass resettlement of populations for “imperative military reasons.” Under the heading “Displacement of the Civilian Population,” the manual states: “The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if required for the security of the population or for imperative military reasons.” (P. 778)
And further: “The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.” (P. 1,035)
Martial law and occupation
The manual outlines procedures for military occupation and imposition of martial law on subjugated territories. Protocols are formulated in extremely general terms, making clear that the entire world, including the US “Homeland,” is viewed as actual or potential Occupied Territory.
Inhabitants of territory under US military rule must submit unconditionally to the dictates of the “Occupying Power,” rendering “strict obedience to the orders of the occupant,” the manual states in the section “Suspension and Substitution of Governmental Authority.”
US commanders may “exercise authority over all means of public and private transportation, whether land, waterborne, or air, within the occupied territory, and may seize them and regulate their operation,” the manual asserts.
Lest there be any illusions that protocols for military occupation and suspension of constitutional government do not apply within the borders of the United States, the manual announces that the DOD-promulgated law of war policies are being integrated into US domestic law. “Law of war requirements have also been incorporated into domestic law, policy, regulations, and orders,” the document states (P. 1,057).
In the section on “Non-International Armed Conflict,” the manual develops another conceptual loophole that enables US forces to violate the Geneva Conventions and other international laws when engaged in operations against persons or organizations that are not formally part of an internationally recognized state.
Whereas the manual assigns some limited relevance to international laws in relation to military conflicts against rival national states, non-international armed conflicts are said to be conducted under the essentially limitless authorities assigned by the manual to the US government as the world’s most powerful national state.
Non-state actors cannot claim the legal status of national governments and are essentially considered to be legally naked, that is, fully at the mercy of the US government and not entitled to the minimal protections afforded to captured enemy POWs.
The sovereign equality of States is not applicable in armed conflicts between a State and a non-State armed group. A State may exercise both sovereign and belligerent rights over non-State armed groups. (P. 1,025)
The limits imposed by international law on a State’s action against non-State armed groups do not alter the basic principle that the State may exercise its sovereign powers against the non-State armed group…
Although, during international armed conflict, lawful combatants are afforded certain immunities from the enemy State’s jurisdiction, persons belonging to non-State armed groups lack any legal privilege or immunity from prosecution by a State that is engaged in hostilities against that group. (P. 1,025)
Such language serves to put US officers on notice that, in confronting insurrectionary movements by the American and international working class, they are permitted to cast aside all restraints conventionally associated with the law of war as it has evolved over centuries.
Riyadh and Tehran are regional rivals, each nation pursuing polar opposite policies.
On January 3, Riyadh cut diplomatic ties, trade and air links with Iran, likely pre-planned, using the phony pretext of angry Iranians storming its Tehran embassy over the extrajudicial execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr.
Other Gulf States Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE along with Sudan and Djibouti followed suit, either cutting or downgrading diplomatic and commercial ties with Iran. Turkey and Jordan expressed support for Riyadh.
The entire scenario appears pre-planned. Are Washington’s dirty hands involved, maintaining 36 years of anti-Iranian hostility despite last year’s nuclear deal?
On January 7, Saudi warplanes deliberately terror-bombed Iran’s Yemeni embassy, a willful act of war, flagrantly violating the immunity of all diplomatic missions worldwide.
Riyadh continues escalating tensions with Tehran. It intends trying four Iranians on phony terrorism charges, another for cooperating with Iran’s intelligence ministry.
An Iranian national was wrongfully sentenced to 13 years imprisonment on phony charges of conducting terrorist attacks during last year’s Hajj pilgrimage.
According to Fars News, Tehran accused Riyadh of “pursuing a crisis-escalation policy against” the Islamic Republic.
President Hassan Rohani said its regime “distorted its image among the world states, especially Islamic countries, more than ever” – fostering terrorism, sectarianism and extremism regionally and beyond.
A separate article explained Britain’s involvement in Riyadh’s terror war on Yemen – including providing help choosing targets, many civilian ones to inflict maximum pain and suffering.
Britain’s College of Policing trained hundreds of Saudi police officers, notorious for committing human rights violations. It’s unclear what type training was provided during the December 2012 – October 2015 period, information on it suppressed, the arrangement now suspended or terminated.
UK-based Reprieve human rights group death penalty team director Maya Foa blasted the Home Office – saying it “has serious questions to answer over the relationship between British police and Saudi forces, (notorious) for serious human rights abuses such as torture.”
“Given that the Saudis are executing record numbers of people – including political protesters who were tortured and convicted in secret courts, some when they were just teenagers – the government’s refusal to reveal details of its cooperation with the Saudis is totally unacceptable.”
“The Home Secretary must explain urgently why she is risking UK complicity with these terrible abuses.”
On Friday, thousands of Iranians protested nationwide against Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr’s extrajudicial execution. In a letter to the UN, Tehran’s Foreign Ministry said Riyadh must “crucial(ly)” choose between fostering regional terrorism and sectarian hatred or promoting good relations and stability.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the kingdom of:
trying to undermine last year’s nuclear deal;
“perpetrat(ing) acts of terror;”
supporting “extremist terrorists in Syria and elsewhere;”
waging “senseless war” in Yemen;
mistreating Hajj pilgrims;
“fueling public outrage in Iran;” and
engaging in “numerous direct and at times lethal provocations against” the Islamic Republic.
It remains to be seen what dirty schemes Riyadh intends next, likely complicit with its rogue regional partners and Washington.
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.
You might have heard about a few of them, but not as much as you should. Here’s our pick of the last 12 month’s top news stories, all pretty much ignored by the corporate press.
Whistleblowers, Ecocide, top secret trade deals, and shady ties between the Islamic State and the West’s closest allies…here are a few hot topics the mainstream media barely covered in 2015.
1. Any Tragedy That’s Not Western-Centric
The outpouring of fury, despair and grief by the corporate press over the November 13 Paris attacks highlighted the bias of the mainstream media towards western victims of terrorism. There were two suicide bombings in Lebanon the day before the events in Paris, killing 37 and wounding 180, but they were not mentioned much in the sensationalist coverage of France’s tragedy, nor were they mentioned in the minutes’ silences and vigils conducted across the Western world in the aftermath.
From the horrors of the Congo’s bloody civil war to Erdogan’s persecution of Turkish Kurds, from Boko Haram’s ongoing reign of terror in Nigeria, Chad, and Cameroon to the plight of Sudanese refugees, the mainstream media seems to pick and choose which human lives deserve our empathy and which aren’t quite so important.
2. Indonesia Burning
As we previously reported, the Indonesian wildfires that caused devastation to the country’s people and wildlife last year were largely ignored by the mainstream media until several months after the devastating event began. The fires were started by loggers to clear the way for controversial palm oil plantations and caused health problems for over one million people. The World Bank estimates that the fires destroyed 2.6 million hectares (6.4m acres) of rainforest between June and October, costing $16.1bn and causing untold loss of life to the endangered animals who depend on the forests for their survival. Terrified orang-utans fleeing the disaster were abused in a sickening way by some Indonesian villagers.
Ecocide on this scale should have been one of the biggest stories of 2015, but with the exception of Guardian columnist and environmental activist George Monbiot (who attacked his industry for censorship of the event), the tragedy was largely ignored to protect corporate interests.
3. France’s Slip Into Martial Law
The terrorist attacks in Paris were used as justification by the French, British and German governments to join military strikes in Syria. They were also used as justification by the French government to severely restrict freedoms at home. As we reported, immediately after the terrible events of November 13, the French government began closing down alternative news sites. The President also declared that anyone’s house could be searched without a warrant, websites could be blocked without warning, and citizens could be put under house arrest without a trial. Activists hoping to march in Paris at last month’s Climate Conference were disappointed to learn that France’s state of emergency also included a ban on protests. Some French politicians are pushing to install GPS trackers in rental cars, re-write the Constitution to allow for martial law, block free wifi and Tor, and combine state databases, which would give the state access to citizens’ personal medical records.
Amnesty International, along with many French bloggers, expressed concern that the Government had imposed martial law in response to the terrorist attack. They have a point: Isn’t a restriction of freedoms at home exactly what extremists would want? John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Director of Europe and Central Asia, said in November: “It is a paradox to suspend human rights in order to defend them.”
Many bloggers agreed and said they were scared about the situation in France. One wrote:
“I’m currently living in Paris, the city where some fanatics killed people because they were listening to music, watching a football match, or simply enjoy beers in a bar. I was living in the neighbourhood of where those tragic event happened. Now I’m scared. I’m not scared of terrorists. I’m scared of my own country. I’m scared because different is now starting to mean dangerous.”
The anonymous man goes on:
“It seems that being an ecologist is enough to get house arrest. Before its 20th November reform, this sentence was reserved to people ‘whose activity is dangerous’, now it’s ‘serious reason to believe that his behaviour constitutes a threat’. We’re almost at the thought crime.”
France’s emergency measures were reported by the mainstream media, but there was little analysis or debate about whether they are justified: the myth we have to trade in our freedoms to get security has become a normal part of everyday life.
4. The Truth About ISIS
In 2015, True Activist reported on a growing body of evidence that strongly suggests the Islamic State:
Would not exist at all if it weren’t for the Pentagon’s terrible handling of the illegal 2003 Iraq invasion
Is funded and armed by Western allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia
May have ties to the British government and Israel
Could be part of a bigger geo-political plan by the USA and Britain to destabilise the region, using the corporate press to lie to the public in order to gain popular support for more endless oil wars.
The mainstream media continues to peddle the tired old narrative that the Western coalition are in Syria specifically to fight the I.S. If this were true, it would be logical for these countries to support Russia in its war against the terrorist organization. Yet coverage of VladimirPutin in the corporate press continues to be entirely negative, despite the fact Russia single-handedly took out 40% of the Islamic State’s infrastructure in just one week. The revelations above have been completely censored by the corporate press, which is becoming less credible by the day.
5. The British Parliament Voted Against Democracy
Last month, an English politician stood up in the Houses of Parliament and gave a speech calling for electoral reform. His request, backed by thousands of citizens, was blocked. The UK has an archaic system of voting which is unfit for purpose and entirely undemocratic: after unpopular Prime Minister David Cameron won the 2015 election with just 36% of the vote, millions of British people felt cheated. A petition was launched to demand proportional representation rather than the co-called ‘first past the post’ system, which benefits the major political parties but never the alternatives. In short, Britain is not the fair, democratic nation it pretends to be. News that Jonathan Reynold’s request (video here) for a fairer system was rejected should have been a big story in the UK, but the British media barely covered it.
6. The Reality Of Top-Secret Free Trade Deals
The TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Partnership Agreement) TISA, (Trade in Services Agreement) and TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) are highly controversial and top secret deals that will affect the lives of every citizen of the planet, yet we apparently have no right to decide whether we want them- or even to know the exact details of the draft legislation.
TTIP, in particular, is of huge concern. As we have reported, the deal threatens to allow corporations to sue governments who don’t do as they are told, kill online privacy, make fracking standard procedure across 28 countries, privatise European health systems, force GMO food on unwilling citizens, strip us of our civil liberties, and ensure that corporations have control over the European parliament.
JulianAssange called TTIP “The most important thing happening in Europe right now,” which is why Wikileaks is raising a 100,000 euro reward for any information relating to the deal. The site says of TTIP:
“It remains secret almost in its entirety, closely guarded by the negotiators, and only big corporations are given special access to its terms. The TTIP covers half of global GDP and is one of the largest agreements of its kind in history. The TTIP aims to create a global economic bloc outside of the WTO framework, as part of a geopolitical economic strategy against the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.”
Considering the impact all three of these trade deals will have on democracy, human rights, food safety and the environment, public awareness should be widespread. Worryingly, a huge number of people know next to nothing about TTIP, TISA and TPP.
Far from questioning the secrecy of such important agreements or inciting a crucial public debate about whether these deals are ethical and democratic, mainstream coverage has glossed over the negatives and generally provided a biased view of the benefits of this corporate take-over of the world.
Transcripts of two phone calls between Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi reveal the Libyan dictator forced the former prime minister to confirm he did not support Al-Qaeda, as civil war engulfed the North African state.
On Thursday, the ex-PM submitted a transcript of the calls he made to Gaddafi on February 25, 2011, to MPs as part of their investigation into the UK’s policy on Libya.
Addressing MPs in Parliament, Blair insisted he contacted Gaddafi as a “concerned private citizen,” and confirmed he cleared the phone calls with Prime Minister David Cameron and the US State Department.
Blair accused of supporting Al-Qaeda
Blair appears to have been pressured to respond to a number of allegations during the phone calls, including claims he supported Al-Qaeda. “People spreading rumors through the TV stations. Those people are from Guantanamo, we know them by name, they support Al-Qaeda – do you support Al-Qaeda?” Gaddafi asked Blair. Blair, who drove the thaw in relations between the West and Gaddafi, replied: “No, absolutely not.”
Gaddafi then accused the ex-PM of attempting to recolonize Libya. “It seems this is colonization, I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight.” Blair insisted: “No one wants to recolonize Libya.” “Let me be clear, no one wants to recolonize Libya – Libya is for its people,” he said.
‘Get to a safe place’
During the conversation, the ex-PM urged Gaddafi to get to a “safe place” in order to promote a peace process in Libya. The transcripts show Blair was attempting to convince Gaddafi to allow a peaceful resolution to the crisis engulfing Libya and avoid a protracted civil war.
“The position of the leader is crucial, if he indicates that he wants this to occur now, and that he will stand aside and go somewhere safe I think this will resolve this peacefully,” Blair told Gaddafi, referring to him in the third person. “He needs to signal acceptance of that change and he needs to stand aside to let that happen peacefully.”
‘We have no problem’
However, the deposed Libyan leader repeatedly refused to leave the country and insisted there was not much fighting going on in Libya. “We have no problem, just leave us alone,” the Libyan leader told Blair. “We are not fighting them, they are attacking us,” he said.
“I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organization has laid down sleeping cells in North Africa. Called the Al-Qaeda Organization in North Africa … The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.” He then warned Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse. “They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.” Blair has since been accused of trying to protect Gaddafi when he warned him to flee Libya.
‘I was not trying to save Gaddafi’
Speaking during a Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the UK’s policy in Libya, the ex-PM said: “It’s been presented as if I was trying to save Gaddafi. I wasn’t trying to ‘save Gaddafi.”
“My concern was not for his safety, it was to get him out of this situation.” After the uprising, in which Gaddafi was killed, the relationship between the West and Libya came under heavy criticism in the wake of numerous commercial deals.
Libya remains in the grip of civil war with many areas controlled by Islamic extremists linked to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). Crispin Blunt MP, chair of the Committee, said: “The transcripts supplied by Mr Blair provide a new insight into the private views of Colonel Gaddafi as his dictatorship began to crumble around him. “The failure to follow Mr Blair’s calls to ‘keep the lines open’ and for these early conversations to initiate any peaceful compromise continue to reverberate.”
Blair’s business interests tripled in profits
The transcripts were made public a day after accounts published for Blair’s business, Windrush Ventures Ltd, reveal his company saw its turnover increase by a third to £19.4 million in 2015, while profits tripled to £2.6 million.
Staff working for the firm have received an average pay increase of more than £30,000, according to the Mail Online. Tony Blair’s office said in a statement: “As we stress every year, the financial results released today do not present the overall profits of either of the Windrush or Firerush businesses.”
The Government has responded to comments from the Israeli foreign minister who claimed Ireland is among the European countries to have “abandoned” Israel and drew comparisons with the fate of Czechoslovakia prior to the Second World War.
A report in the Jerusalem Post newspaper this week carried the comments from Avigdor Liberman [Pictured left. Photograph: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters], made at a meeting of Israel’s ambassadors to the EU.
Mr Liberman was quoted as saying:
“The behaviour of countries like Sweden and Ireland is the same behaviour and abandonment that existed in Europe in 1938 with the Munich Agreement, when the Europeans abandoned their biggest ally, Czechoslovakia.”
The Israeli minister said Germany was an example of a European country that understood the challenges faced by Israel and its role as “the only country that represents western values in the Middle East”.
Mr Liberman said he would not be meeting the Swedish foreign minister when she visits the country this month over that country’s approach to the recognition of Palestine.
Ireland has also taken steps to officially recognise Palestine, and the Jerusalem Post report also namechecks the Wexford Independent TD Mick Wallace, quoting some of what he said to the Dáil during a debate on the issue.
The Department of Foreign Affairs said:
“The Government has always made clear that we believe our objective of a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict is very much in the interests of the security and prosperity of both Israelis and Palestinians. This view is almost universally shared in the international community, and by very many people in Israel. We will continue to support efforts to progress the Middle East peace process, working with both sides and as active members of the EU and UN.”
Mr Wallace defended what he said in the course of the Dáil debate:
“Right now, Israel is losing the struggle for legitimacy and that’s developing into a fundamental problem for them.
“United Nations diplomacy has failed because the US can decide what’s a legitimate or illegitimate move by the Palestinians to gain freedom, independence, and to end apartheid. We now need a different kind of diplomacy that starts with International law.”
“We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late.”
That’s from Libya’s National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Muamar Gaddafi.
The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that’s been closed for at least a year.
Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. “Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya’s biggest oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,” Reuters notes. “They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State, and the eastern city of Benghazi.”
ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. “Four tanks in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in Ras Lanuf the day before,” Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard told Bloomberg over the phone.
A fire at Ras Lanuf
A smoking storage tank in Es Sider
Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are “likely diversionary operations” during Islamic State’s takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the group to expand and connect “its controlled territory around Sirte to the ‘oil crescent.’”
Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country’s oil infrastructure, much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As Middle East Eye wrote last summer, “the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields, where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized.”
“I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the oil crescent,” one oil worker said. “There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from local security from isolated towns.”
Efforts to protect Libya’s oil are complicated immeasurably by the fractious (and that’s putting it nicely) political environment.
In short: the country is a modern day Wild West and a strong central government is now a distant memory. This makes administering the country’s resources nearly impossible. Oil production is now just a quarter of what it was under Qaddafi. Essentially, both of Libya’s two governments have what they call a National Oil Corp. The eastern NOC is run by the exiled government in Tobruk (which is internationally recognized), where the House of Representatives was exiled in 2014 after elections produced an outcome that wasn’t agreeable to Islamist elements in Tripoli.
Unfortunately, large foreign oil companies won’t work with Tobruk’s NOC which sets up the following ridiculous scenario: the internationally recognized government in Tobruk has an NOC no one wants to work with, while Tripoli’s NOC (which foreign oil companies will do business with) is run by a government that the world doesn’t deem legitimate.
To top it all off, there’s every reason to believe that neither Tobruk nor Tripoli actually control the country’s oil. Here’s Foreign Policy:
On the ground, the conflict involves far more than just the two bickering governments. Libya is composed of dozens of tribes, each with its own shifting interests and allegiances.
“There’s a question about the extent to which the political forces actually have control over the important militias on the ground,” said Chivvis. “I think all this comes down to who controls the oil; it comes down to alliances on the ground. Which political forces control which sites within Libya.”
Ibrahim Jadhran is a perfect — and crucial — example. The 35-year-old was a militia leader during the 2011 revolution, and was appointed commander of the Petroleum Defense Guards by the still-unified transitional government in 2012. Originally from the eastern city of Ajdabiya, the rogue militia leader is an outspoken advocate of a federal system for Libya and frequently uses his power to open or close oil ports, shutting off oil exports — and therefore salaries — when he disagrees with either government.
“One of the initial causes for the plummeting of Libyan oil production was the blockade imposed by Ibrahim Jadhran in August of 2013,” said Porter. The commander has continued the tactic of stoppages in defiance of both regimes, even trying to steal a tanker full of crude to sell on the black market. The ship was finally stopped by the U.S. Navy off the coast of Cyprus.
Jadhran’s power is not to be underestimated. In fact, according to local media reports, it was actually him, and not the Tobruk government, that closed the Zuetina port. As Porter points out, it is Jadhran — not Tripoli or Tobruk — who truly controls exports.
Got that? There are two governments and two NOCs, but that doesn’t really matter because the whole show is run by a militia leader. “Jadhran is a mystery even to us. We have not yet understood what he really is, apart from an oil thief,” Misrata Military Council head Ibrahim Beitemal told Middle East Eye last year.
Ali al-Hassi (quoted above) is a spokesperson for Jadhran’s forces.
Islamic State then, is apparently at war with Jadhran which is interesting for a number of reasons.
First, Jadhran’s brother is in ISIS. “ISIS’ Libya branch released an online statement earlier in the week claiming to have taken control of the coastal city of Bin Jawed, about 120 miles east of Sirte,” CBS reported on Monday. “Bin Jawed is the last city before the oil town of Sidra and the huge oil port of Ras Lanouf, both currently witnessing fierce clashes between ISIS and al-Jadhran’s men.” And more: “ISIS fighters were reportedly attacking Siddra from three directions, aided by al-Jadhran’s own brother, who apparently joined the ISIS camp.”
Additionally, some say Jadhran once tried to broker a deal with the group and it’s not entirely clear what, if any, relationship he has with the militants. “We have been told that Jadhran proposed some reinforcements to ISIS but on the condition that he kept control of the oil ports and fields, but this was rejected,” a source told Middle East Eye.
So Libya’s vast oil wealth is effectively up for grabs and the person guarding it has a brother who not only joined ISIS, but is actually participating in the battle for key ports and facilities. Now, Britain is apparently on the verge of sending in thousands of troops to halt the ISIS advance in yet another example of the West engineering regime change only to go back in later in a futile attempt to clean up the mess.”Crack SAS troops are in Libya preparing for the arrival of around 1,000 British infantrymen to be sent against ISISthere in early 2016,” The Mirror reports. “The operation will involve around 6,000 American and European soldiers and marines – led by Italian forces and supported mainly by Britain and France.”
Of course that wouldn’t be necessary if the West hadn’t thrown out the government in Tripoli back in 2011. Now, the stepped up ISIS attacks threaten to derail the formation of a unitary governing body.
“In December, representatives of Libya’s two rival powers signed a United Nations-brokered power-sharing pact that called for the formation of a national unity government by mid-January,” WSJ notes, adding that the violence could “undermine the financial viability of a peace agreement by destroying the country’s main source of revenue.”
“I urge the swift formation of a national unity government and the establishment of a unified force structure capable of bringing peace to this country and protecting its natural resources,” Mustafa Sanallah, chairman of National Oil Co., said, in a statement posted on the company’s website on Wednesday.
Now that Russia has begun to dismantle Islamic State’s oil operation in Syria and now that the link with the Turks has been revealed, it might very well be that ISIS is turning to Libya as an alternative source of financing. Taking control of the country’s oil crescent would be a good start.
Will the country’s rival governments unite in time to stop the assault? Will Jadhran resort to some manner of negotiated settlement with ISIS if it means retaining his influence over Libya’s oil riches? How will ISIS get its captured crude to market without a cross-border state sponsor?
All good questions that will be answered soon enough. For now, we close with one final quote from Jadhran’s spokesperson:
We all know how the story goes. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. It was then controversially annexed in 1981, despite the UN calling the efforts “null”, “void” and “without international legal effect”. Today it is still internationally and legally recognised as Syrian land, but Israel persists with its possession.
Of course, such persistence can prove to be quite lucrative when the land is abundant in resources – especially land as fertile as the Syrian Golan – a generous source of gushing waters and game changing oil reserves.
In fact, the Golan Heights contributes a quenching one-third of Israel’s entire water supply. Its catchments leading to the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret – Israel’s main water source – receive long bouts of heavy rainfall, particularly during the colder months and occasionally during stormy season in the summer.
But the Golan Heights does more than just fill Israel’s many swimming pools. It also provides snow for Israel’s one and only skiing destination, the Mount Hermon Ski Resort. The mountain’s peak reaches 9232 feet above sea level and is Syria’s highest point – an altitude Syrians no longer get to enjoy.
The remunerative resort attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists every year; many of them, foreigners, who are conveniently unaware of the land’s disputation. For most, the irony of supporting Israeli tourism on Syrian soil is lost on them.
Then there’s the contentious matter of oil. The Golan Heights has long been speculated to be sitting on serious amounts of hydrocarbon, and recent discoveries have confirmed these theories. US company, Genie Energy, along with its Israeli subsidiary, Afek Oil and Gas, are currently in the process of drilling for what Israel’s Channel 2 headlined as “an amazing discovery in the Golan Heights”.
An “amazing discovery” it surely is. One that will profoundly benefit Israel for many years to come, as well as Genie Energy shareholders, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney and Lord Jacob Rothschild.
And in light of recent discoveries, the government of Netanyahu continues attempts to annex the Syrian land. The US backs the UN in its polite requests for Israel to comply with international law, while at the same time, US companies like Genie Energy, use the occupied land for their own ventures, emphasising the notion that the Pentagon is run by corporations.
Israel’s ‘oasis’ in the desert continues to develop at the expense of Syria and the Syrian people. And despite international indignation for Israel’s unlawful actions, nothing of any real substance is done about it. Over the years, this inactivity has encouraged Israel to presume it is above the law.
But while it may seem insignificant, considering Israel’s track-record of getting away with murder (so to speak), it is important to keep in mind that ‘the gift that keeps on giving’ never actually was one.
The Golan Heights was and still is Syrian territory.
January 9th, 2016 by The Palestinian Information Center
The Palestinian Return Center (PRC) accused on Friday the International Criminal Court (ICC) of pro-Israel bias in its new report on Preliminary Examination Activities published on November 12th, 2015.
The ICC’s Report on Preliminary Examination Activities provides a section on Gaza in the “Contextual Background” to the alleged crimes that casts doubts on the neutrality of the approach, the PRC said in its report issued on Friday.
The PRC report analyzed each Point (55-56-57-58) of the “Contextual Background” and demonstrated the numerous instances where the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) does not attempt to provide a balanced account of the events. Instead, the OTP omits the Palestinian narrative and even excludes the use of International Law as a tool of reference to describe the history of the conflict and more recent events leading up to the “51-Day War”.
The PRC said that Point 55 of the ICC’s report considered reasonable to describe the situation by writing, “The conflict in Gaza stems as far back as Israel’s occupation of the territory beginning in 1967 and its subsequent conflicts with the organized groups operating in Gaza.”
However, the OTP “ignores a key element of the conflict: in 1948 Israel caused the displacement of approximately 850,000 Palestinians, of which approximately 200,000 had to relocate to Gaza. The dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the expropriation of their homes and lands, upon which much of the State of Israel was built, do not seem to constitute a significant element to be included in the “Contextual Background” by the OTP.
The next point, number 56 offers an instance where the OTP seems to provide a one-sided account of the events leading up to the latest major conflict in Gaza. It is stated: “In response to increasing rocket attacks, in 2007, Israel declared that Hamas had turned Gaza into “hostile territory” and took sanctions against Hamas, imposing restrictions on the passage of certain goods to Gaza and the movement of people to and from Gaza.”
The first problem here is the prosecutor’s decision to begin by stating, “In response to increasing rocket attacks”. While this is the official Israeli position, it cannot be considered a fair or a neutral account. It is ignoring the fact that violence erupting from Gaza might be caused by decades of Israeli breaches of international law and colonial policies.
In light of this, it seems questionable that the OTP would prefer to portray Israel’s official discourse rather than describing the events from an International Law perspective, which would be deemed as a more objective way for the International Criminal Court to explain the ‘Contextual Background’ to the war in Gaza. To use Israel’s interpretation of the events the OTP risks casting the law as an instrument that protects colonial authority at the expense of the right of civilian non-combatants, according to the PRC.
We often hear from Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank on the struggle for freedom from occupation. One group of Palestinians who are not heard from as often is the 1948 Palestinians, those who after the 1948 Nakbe were able to remain within what became the State of Israel. While 750,000 -800,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes during the Nakbe, a very small number were allowed to remain or return [1]. Those Palestinians who were able to remain or return had Israeli citizenship forced upon them and became known as 1948 Palestinians. My lineage descends from these 1948 Palestinians, in the small village of Ilabun, in the north of historic Palestine.
I have spent most of my life in the United States. The journey to understanding my origin as Palestinian was a long one. This experience has profound implications for people trying to understand the best strategy for pursuing justice for Palestinians. Despite my recent activism and writing, I have not always understood my own identity. The educational system in the United States, while growing up, was in general, quite biased against the Palestinians and our history. The media, for the most part, also did little to educate one on these issues. Having United States citizenship and Israeli citizenship did not in any way promote my understanding of who I am, and where I come from. The summer visits while growing up to Ilabun to see family did little to further my education. The process of true education on this issue began in 2011 and continues today. All of it was done due to my own interest.
Prior to this self-education process, I made many mistakes when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issues and history. In my defense, I knew next to nothing of my own history and repeated platitudes about peace without any honest understanding of the reality. I felt that somehow I had some kind of confused identity, which everyone around my referred to as “Israeli-Arab.” I didn’t understand what that meant. Why were we in Israel? Why are “they,” referring to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians, and we, being fellow Arabs, referred to as “Israeli Arabs.”
It took a lot of self-education from 2011 onward to finally understand what had happened. Part of the issue that blinded me for so long is that much of the discussion of the issue looks at the problem as if it began in 1967. This history totally ignores the basis of the problem, which is Zionism. The roots of the conflict therefore began long before 1967, and actually long before even 1948, with the early Zionist ideas beginning in the 1880s.
As I devoured material on the history, I finally understood my identity. My questions and feelings which were so confused and conflicted finally were resolved. I finally understood that I was Palestinian. I was just as Palestinian as the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. I was just as Palestinian as the refugees and just as Palestinian as the diaspora. We were all the same people. There is no difference in terms of identity. The only difference is location.
After much time spent in Ilabun and discussing these issues with people, I began to understand what had happened. The program of Zionism requires racism as a prerequisite to create a Jewish majority state in land which is majority non-Jewish. The 1948 Palestinians (my grandparents and their parents, etc) were the first victims during the Nakbe, along with the refugees. Those remaining were put under martial law from 1948-1966. A systematic erasure of our identity has been organized and implemented on all levels (media, education, etc). The suppression of the idea of us being Palestinians was and continues to be the cornerstone of Israeli government policy. The creation of the term “Israeli-Arab” was intended to separate our identity from our fellow Palestinians in the rest of historic Palestine and the Palestinian refugees. I no longer accept this term, which is a colonialist creation intended to further the Zionist aim of ethnically cleansing the maximum amount of land. This is pure divide and conquer strategy.
In the decades since 1948, the Israeli government has continued to maximize isolation of the 1948 Palestinians from the rest of our Palestinian brothers and sisters. In my discussion with fellow 1948 Palestinians who retained their identity (more common in the older generation), and with additional historical self-education, I discovered a disturbing pattern of propaganda and control. The education system has long been the target of the Israeli government, with teacher selection tightly controlled and anti-Zionist teachers excluded as much as possible. Textbooks also have been screened to minimize any possibility of teaching 1948 Palestinians their identity and history. Although the various forms of suppression did not remain the same over the past 67 years, and occasionally became more or less strict, the overall goal of isolating 1948 Palestinians remains the same today as it was in 1948.
Nakbe denial was common and continues today, although it has lessened slightly since the “new historians” of the 1980’s and onward. A bit more disturbing is the replacement of some Nakbe denial with Nakbe justification, which seeks to justify the ethnic cleansing of 50% of the population of historic Palestine during the Nakbe.
Through martial law for the 1948 Palestinians from 1948-1966 (very similar to the policies of the occupation in the West Bank today), and a systemic attempt to eliminate the Palestinian identity through government, media, and educational propaganda and control, the 1948 Palestinians have gone through much and continue to suffer greatly.
When coming from the United States to visit Ilabun, I immediately, upon entering historic Palestine, sense that something is wrong. I feel that I am entering a prison. There is something disturbing in the air. I remember, when I was a young child in the 1990s, being questioned in the airport in Tel Aviv about what language I spoke at home. The security official looked at me and with hate-filled eyes, asked me “Do you speak Arabic at home?”
“Yes,” I answered, all the while perceiving his eyes as if he had just gotten me to confess to a murder. It was the strangest thing, and at such a young age, with no historical understanding, I simply brushed it off as a strange occurrence. But today, I look back upon it as something deeply disturbing. It was an intentional method to cause the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine to feel unwelcome and hated. The government wanted us to feel that, by letting us in, Israeli security was doing us a favor, allowing us into our homeland. The incident, with that feeling of being hated for admitting to speaking Arabic, has stuck with me since then.
In 2012, upon leaving to go back to the United States, I experienced the worst airport screening experience in my life in Tel Aviv airport. I remember the security officer stating “We don’t care about your health, we only care about security.” I remember thinking as I left, “I will never come back here.” Later on, when I processed that thought in a historical context, I realized that this is exactly what the Israeli government wants. The government wants to encourage Palestinian emigration. They want to make sure you get that last bit of humiliation and suffering on your way out, just to keep fresh in your memory, in case you ever consider visiting or living in Palestine. On recent trips, I have avoided the Tel Aviv Airport and used the Amman, Jordan airport instead whenever possible.
The point of all of this is to highlight some current issues which I believe are relevant to the struggle for Palestinian rights. There is a unique history of suppression and identity removal that the 1948 Palestinians have experienced which requires significant efforts to overcome. Although I speak mainly from experience in Ilabun, I believe that this unique history has resulted in many 1948 Palestinians not knowing their identity and history. It has led to increasing numbers of 1948 Palestinians being Zionist in their outlook. It has led to rising numbers of 1948 Palestinians hating themselves (self-hating Arabs/Palestinians). It has led to more 1948 Palestinians enlisting in the Israeli army, something which is quite problematic. We have been taught to hate ourselves and to believe that we are inferior to Jews. Obviously, the truth is that all human beings are all equal. There are also many 1948 Palestinians who today celebrate independence day in Israel. The level of self-hatred and/or ignorance of one’s history and identity is stunning in such scenes. These people are essentially celebrating their own ethnic cleansing. It will take a lot of effort to reverse the effects of the Zionist propaganda machine of the Israeli government.
In particular, in the last 15 years, I can see some of the indirect effects of all this propaganda on people in the 1948 Palestinian community. While there are many in our community who are struggling valiantly for Palestinian rights and justice, there has been a cumulative effect on many people’s psyche. Many people have left (emigrated), feeling hopeless. There are dozens of laws that distinguish between Jews and non-Jews in Israel. [2]. And in terms of the supposedly “democratic” nature of living in Israel, it is illegal for any political party to run for the Knesset unless it believes in the “democratic and Jewish” nature of the state. Basically, this implies that it is illegal for a political party to run for the Knesset unless it is Zionist, and therefore racist.
The sky-high poverty rate among 1948 Palestinians (approximately 53%), combined with constant incitement to hate one’s own people from the Zionist media, and the confusion of one’s identity, have resulted in numerous psychological and social effects. Crime and organized crime have become an issue, egoism has increased, with a loss of caring about neighbors and the community around them. Principles and ethics have been reduced dramatically, with people more likely to look at economic issues as more important than any other issue. Capitalism has become more common as a guiding force for people in their daily interactions, with price being considered more important than environmental, labor, and ethical standards.
All of these issues have occurred concurrently with the slow loss of the Arabic language. The older 1948 Palestinian generation speaks a relatively complete Arabic. Many Arabic vocabulary terms have been lost in today’s generation, which occasionally finds it difficult to find the words in Arabic, as they only know the word in Hebrew. Other 1948 Palestinians stubbornly hold on to their language as an act of cultural self-preservation in the context of the settler-colonialism of Zionism.
Learning the Hebrew language, and as many languages as possible, is a positive development. I do, however, find it disconcerting that in the context of our Palestinian history, a history that involves ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonialism, and cultural oppression, that many 1948 Palestinians no longer have the ability to speak the complete Arabic language. I am concerned about the deteriorating Arabic vocabulary and saddened at the slow loss of our language, and believe that a revival in our language would be a positive development.
We also have an environmental crisis in some areas where 1948 Palestinians reside. The continual effect of propaganda on people’s psyche has resulted in a casual attitude toward polluting the land and littering. People have lost their identity as Palestinians, and they have lost their deep connection with the land which is traditional in Palestinian culture. As more and more of the land has been stolen by the Israeli government, people have become more and more unconcerned with taking care of the Earth and the land of our ancestors. In general, we, as the 1948 Palestinians are losing our connection with the land and the environment, becoming more capitalistic, more individualistic, and more materialistic. Consumerism is becoming more common as well. The combined effects of poverty, ethnic cleansing, environmentally-induced neurological damage, consumerism, capitalism, the destruction of our heritage and connection with the land, the destruction of our identity and self-esteem, have all combined to cause severe environmental problems, particularly in the past 15 years.
The overall world trend of increasingly toxic environments (toxic chemicals, heavy metals, plastics, genetically modified foods, synthetic pesticides/herbicides/insecticides, and electromagnetic fields-blood brain barrier damage from microwave radiation from wireless devices, for example), has strongly contributed to impaired brain activity, among many other negative health, environmental, and social consequences [10, 12-15]. Another contributor to this brain damage and other health problems is the current vaccination program [8-10]. Corrupt multinational corporations which produce these vaccines have severely biased the science on this topic in pursuit of profits at the expense of health. A proper, safe, and effective vaccination program for infants, toddlers, children, adults, and seniors could be designed based exclusively on homeoprophylaxis, which could provide very solid protection with essentially no side effects. A massive study in Cuba related to Leptospirosis demonstrates the potential for such a program based on homeophrophylaxis [7]. Instead, children with undeveloped blood-brain barriers and immune systems (under the age of 2) are given toxic vaccines, causing post-vaccine encephalopathy and autoimmune problems, among other negative results. This brain damage which is increasing due to the toxic environment, particularly, in the younger generation, is contributing to a “carefree” attitude toward everything. Such an attitude does not think twice before dumping a television onto the land. This attitude does not consider the toxic effects of such behavior on the community, and ultimately, themselves. Everyone worldwide is effected by these issues and problems. There are differences in degree of effects based on local and national differences in policies/exposure/legal framework/etc. Certainly, 1948 Palestinians are affected severely by these increasing environmental and health problems.
As I recently walked the path toward my family’s ancestral olive grove north of Ilabun, I was shocked and dismayed by the televisions, computers, electronics, trash, plastics, and other toxic materials thrown on the ground. The toxicity of such dumping is incredibly destructive to our people’s health and well-being. We must reverse these negative influences on our health and environment, and reclaim our connection with the land in order to recover as a people. There are encouraging signs on this front in terms of Palestinian cooperative organic farming booming in the West Bank. Unfortunately, the same level of organic fair-trade cooperative movement has not yet occurred among 1948 Palestinians.
I believe strongly in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement as a method to advance Palestinian rights, and I follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. I call on everyone worldwide to join the BDS movement and promote justice for all. I use the research center whoprofits.org to avoid any company involved with violations of Palestinian human rights [16]. It is essential that all people worldwide, including Arabs, Jews, and all others who care about human rights use their financial resources to promote positive change in the world. Every penny removed from the hands of people involved in abusing Palestinians is a victory for humanity as a whole.
I feel that the enthusiasm for BDS would be higher if 1948 Palestinians were reminded or taught for the first time about their own history and identity. BDS is a positive movement because it moves us toward justice and equal rights for everyone, whether that be in the context of a one-state, two-state, bi-national solution, etc. The name doesn’t really matter, whether one calls it Palestine or Israel or some combination of the two. What matters is substance. Equal rights and justice for everyone, including all refugees, is the goal, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc.
If one looks at what has happened to 1948 Palestinians in the past 67 years, it gives an idea of the goals of Zionism for the rest of the Palestinians. Despite making up approximately 20% of the population, 1948 Palestinians only control 2-3% of the land. What this reflects is a massive land theft that occurred not only during the 1948 Nakbe, but long afterwards [6]. Massive land theft occurred to the point that today only 2-3% of land is owned by 1948 Palestinians. 600 Jewish settlements have formed since 1948, while there have been zero new Palestinian settlements [17]. Remember, we are talking about “Israel proper/pre-1967 Israel” here, not the West Bank or Gaza.
Despite the obvious atrocious history and the fact that approximately 53% of 1948 Palestinians suffer under the poverty line today, we have a continued ignorance among many 1948 Palestinians, who having been brain-washed by Zionist propaganda, do not speak the truth. Until we reverse the profound effects of the brain-washing campaign of 67 years, we will not have the full measure of self-Palestinian support for our rights. What is necessary is a massive counter-educational campaign, done on all fronts to reach the 1948 Palestinian. I am concerned that the path that is occurring with 1948 Palestinians will be followed by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
We must remind 1948 Palestinians (or teach them for the first time) of our shared history and identity with all Palestinians. Zionist media, news, and education must be overcome. Fear must be overcome, as many 1948 Palestinians fear speaking out. Whether as a result of ignorance, fear, or a combination, reigniting our common Palestinian heritage will be incredibly helpful, and potentially necessary, in achieving justice in the long struggle for Palestinian rights. This includes restoring our connection with the land and natural environment. We cannot ignore the 1948 Palestinians, call them “traitors,” or simply view them as a lost cause after suffering for 67 years of Zionist propaganda. Our pursuit of righteousness must include all issues, including environmental, cultural, health, social, and economic. Rescuing the minds of 1948 Palestinians is a missing piece in the quest for this justice.
Shady Srour is a writer, activist, and musician. His interests include peace-making, social justice, environmentalism, organic agriculture, permaculture, cooperative movements, naturopathic medicine, ecological living, sustainability, homeopathy, and spirituality. He received his BA in Zoology with a minor in Neuroscience from Miami University-Oxford, Ohio. He can be reached at [email protected]. In 2014, he wrote Radical Revolution: A Conversation with God (https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/488107).
Suggested References:
Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. 2007. One World Publications.
Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. Adalah.org accessed January 4, 2016.
Kovel, Joel. Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine. 2007. Pluto Press.
Said, Edward. Bayoumi, Moustafa. Rubin, Andrew. The Edward Said Reader. 2000. Vintage.
Pappe, Ilan. Chomsky, Noam. Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians. 2010. Hamish Hamilton.
Palestine Remembered. PalestineRemembered.com accessed January 4, 2016.
Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R , Ordaz B, Marzoa N, Menéndez J, García L, Gilling E, Leyva R, Rufín R, de la Torre R, Solis RL, Batista N, Borrero R, Campa C. Homeopathy. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. 2010 Jul;99(3):156-66.
Tenpenny, Sherri. Saying No to Vaccines: A Resource Guide for all Ages. 2008. NMA Media Press.
Humphries, Suzanne. Bystrianyk, Roman. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. 2015. CreateSpace Independent Publishing.
Murray, Michael. Pizzorno, Joseph. The Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine. 2012. Altria Books.
Said, Edward. Hitchens, Christopher. Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. 2001. Verso.
Davis, Devra. Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family. 2010. Dutton.
Milham, Samuel. Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization. 2012. iUniverse.
Rees, Camilla. Havas, Magda. Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution. 2009. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Crofton, Kerry. Wireless Radiation Rescue: safeguarding your family from the risks of electro-pollution. 2012. Global Wellbeing Books.
Whoprofits.org. A research collaboration detailing involvement of specific corporations in the illegal occupation.
According to Friday’s (January 8) payroll jobs numbers, almost 300,000 new jobs were created in December. Additionally, the previous two months were revised upward by 50,000 jobs. Apparently, the equity market did not believe the report, with the averages moving down today.
As I have pointed out almost monthly for what I think could be approaching two decades, the alleged job growth always takes place in nontradable domestic services, that is, in areas that do not produce exports and have no competition from imports. This is the job profile of a Third World country.
Twelve years ago I predicted at a major Washington, D.C., conference that was nationally televised that in 20 years the United States would have a Third World economy if jobs offshoring, which benefits only corporate executives and shareholders, continued.
Jobs offshoring has continued, and judging by the payroll jobs reports from the US government, the US is already a Third World economy.
The presstitute financial media—and what they are is a bunch of whores—always reports the alleged jobs increase as if it is a great thing, testimony to the continuing strength of the American economy, and so forth. Only a handful of us look at the data and reveal its meaning. Once again I will strip away the Matrix and show you the reality.
Allegedly, the US economy has been in recovery since, if memory serves, June 2009. If so, it is an unusual recovery. Normally, the rising job opportunities associated with economic recoveries bring entrants into the labor force, but the US labor force participation rate has been declining. In December, 2015, there are 1,185,000 fewer Americans in the labor force than in December 2014; yet, the working age population is higher today than a year ago.
The reported unemployment rate does not include “discouraged workers,” that is, workers who unable to find jobs have ceased looking for work. The reported unemployment rate of 5% only counts non-discouraged workers who are still expecting to find a job. The actual unemployment rate, that is, the rate that includes Americans who have given up hope of finding employment, is 23%. Currently, there are 94,691,000 Americans of working age who are not in the labor force. In other words, the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is deprived of a large percentage of its labor input.
Now, we will pay attention, unlike the financial presstitute media, to the age groups who benefited, according to the BLS, from the 292,000 December new jobs. About half of the alleged new jobs—142,000—went to the 55 years old and over age group. This age group consists primarily of retirees who have found it necessary to supplement their retirement income and of those near retirement who are working in order to compensate for the lack of interest on their savings due to the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy. These are part-time, lowly paid jobs without benefits.
Americans of prime working age, 25 years old to 54 year old, only received 16,000 or 5% of the new jobs.
Those aged 46 to 54 lost 165,000 jobs. In other words, middle aged people are losing their jobs before they can provide for their retirement.
There are 527,000 more Americans working multiple jobs in December 2015 than in December 2014.
Now, as we have done so often for many years, let’s look at the make believe jobs that the BLS claims. Almost all of them are in lowly paid domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, couriers and messengers, employment services, social services and health care (primarily ambulatory health care services).
The conclusion is that if we believe the payroll jobs report, the United States is now an economy that only creates Third World jobs in lowly paid domestic services.
And yet this non-economy on the verge of collapse is said by the idiots in Washington to be a super-power.
Washington’s extensive military maneuvers in the Middle East since Sept. 11, 2001, have largely failed, creating far worse calamities at great cost to the people and countries of the region — and there is little reason to suspect this will change for the better in New Year 2016.
Actually, it could get much worse despite UN talks in Vienna later this month to seek a temporary cease-fire in Syria and the beginning of discussions on an eventual new Damascus government. The abrupt break in diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, plus the formation of a new Sunni coalition to “fight terrorism” and new maneuvers by an assertive Turkey could exacerbate existing conflicts.
Here’s a brief look at the three largest wars in which the U.S. is deeply involved at the moment — in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria — plus additional information about the region:
• IN AFGHANISTAN, THE TALIBANIS ON THE OFFENSIVE, battering Afghan troops in Helmand province. The so-called Islamic State (IS) is now a growing presence in the country. Al-Qaeda — the reason George W. Bush bombed and invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 — is making a comeback, according to the Dec. 30 New York Times which revealed:
Even as the Obama Administration scrambles to confront the Islamic State and a resurgent Taliban, an old enemy seems to be reappearing in Afghanistan: Al Qaeda training camps are sprouting up there, forcing the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies to assess whether they could again become a breeding ground for attacks on the United States…. The scope of Al-Qaeda’s deadly resilience in Afghanistan appears to have caught American and Afghan officials by surprise. Again.
A day earlier USA Today reported “Afghanistan’s security situation is so tenuous that the top U.S. commander there wants to keep as many U.S. troops there as possible through 2016 to boost beleaguered Afghan soldiers and may seek additional American forces to assist them.” There are nearly 10,000 U.S troops in Afghanistan today and half are scheduled to depart by the end of 2016 — but Gen. John Campbell, the U.S.-NATO commander in Afghanistan, suggested the larger number, and perhaps more, should remain indefinitely.
The U.S. war in Afghanistan has lasted 14 years and four months and is expected to continue for more years. The cost to U.S. taxpayers so far is over $1 trillion, according to the Financial Times, and the final cost will be much higher. The only American victory in this war will be that of the U.S. armaments industry.
• IN IRAQ, WASHINGTON’S DISASTROUS WAR has lasted nearly 13 years from March 2003 with the exception of two and a half years until returning in August 2014 to fight against the Islamic State (IS) — itself a product of the first war. President Obama propelled the second intervention soon after IS captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in June 2014. Late last month, after losing much ground, Iraqi forces backed by American air power recaptured the key city of Ramadi, destroying a large portion of the city in the process. The battle to recapture Mosul may take place this year.
An Iraqi Kurdish soldier fighting the IS. These women are often on the front lines.
However, many sources in and out of Congress argue that only a significant ground war will ultimately defeat the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria. This could take many years. Aside from 3,500 U.S. military “trainers and advisers” in Iraq, President Obama is reluctant to engage in a ground campaign in either country, given the Pentagon’s difficulties in actually winning winning a major war in the Middle East. If political pressure doesn’t oblige him to deploy a large number of ground troops against IS this year, there is a likelihood his successor may do so in 2017. Regardless, the Iraq war will become more intense in 2016.
There are several other important problems regarding Iraq, but two stand out.
(1) The Islamic State is a militant Sunni “caliphate” based on Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine mainly propagated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The IS evidently considers its main enemy to be the Shia branch of Islam, which departed from the Sunni version in the 7th century. Virtually all of the many Sunni jihadist groups follow a form of fundamentalist Wahhabism or the nearly identical Salafism, and most condemn adherents of Shia Islam. The IS “state” occupies large portions of two Shia-governed countries, Iraq and Syria. Sunni Arabs in Iraq — most of whom do not share fundamentalist views — constitute 15 to 20% of the Iraqi population. But many oppose the Shia controlled Baghdad government. Unless a substantial number of these Sunnis turn strongly against the IS, defeating it will be more difficult.
Kurds make up 17% of the Iraqi population and are described as “mainly secular Sunnis” who seek independence from Iraq in the future to build their own independent state — but at the moment they supply the most effective ground forces against the IS. The Shia represent up to 65% of the population but have long existed under Sunni rule, usually as secondary citizens. It was only after the U.S. destroyed the minority secular Sunni government of Saddam Hussein and his B a’ath Party that the Shia won power in an election. The Bush/Cheney Administration probably knew that regime change in Iraq — Iran’s enemy neighbor to the west — could strengthen the Shia government in Tehran, but since they initially planned to invade Iran (as well as Syria) after Iraq was subdued they ignored the risk. The U.S. sank so deeply in the Iraqi quagmire that it never was able to expand its ridiculous imperialist escapade.
(2) NATO member Turkey is intervening in Iraq against the wishes of the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who leads the Sunni Islamist-leaning government in Ankara, persists in refusing a demand by Shia-governed Iraq to remove the several hundred soldiers and heavy equipment he sent to northwest Iraq Dec. 4, ostensibly to enlarge a smaller Turkish unit training Sunni and Kurdish fighters against the IS takeover of Mosul.
Reflecting the worsening relations between Iraq and Turkey, the Baghdad government did not give Ankara permission to send more troops and insisted they depart immediately. Turkey responded by declaring its soldiers would remain until Mosul is freed from IS control, and criticized the Iraqi government for not moving faster to retake the city. Interestingly, the Arab League, which usually supports Sunni states, backed Iraq’s position Dec. 25, most likely because it is wary of allied but non-Arab Turkey grabbing more influence and territory in the region. (Arab lands were dominated by Turkey’s Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I when British and French imperialism then rearranged the old boundary lines to serve their own interests — a scheme that has contributed to the crises in Iraq and Syria today.)
On Dec. 9, Turkey instructed all its citizens in Iraq to leave the country, except those in Kurdish Iraq. Turkey is fighting against Kurds in Syria, and its own country, but not the Iraqi Kurds, which have cordial relations with the U.S.
Erdoğan, whom the New York Times editorially described Jan. 6 as “an authoritarian leader willing to trample on human rights, the rule of law and political and press freedoms,” has been taking a variety of aggressive steps in recent years to enhance Turkey’s and his own power in the region.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, a journalist and former Indian diplomat, reported in India Punchline Dec. 31: “President Erdoğan paid a daylong visit on Dec. 27 to Riyadh to meet King Salman. The Arab newspaperAsharq Al-Awst reported the two leaders decided to form a ‘strategic cooperation council’ with a view to create a quantum leap in the strength of the relationship between the two countries so that it is strategic and serves the interests of the two countries and their peoples, and contributes to the creation of security and stability in the region.
Evidently, the Turkish-Saudi entente is based on a congruence of interests. A prominent Russian pundit Yevgeniy Satanovsky, who heads the Middle East Institute in Moscow, has warned that Turkey and Saudi Arabia may be planning to step up their longstanding covert support of the radical Islamist groups operating in Russia’s North Caucasus. In recent statements President Vladimir Putin had also signaled that Moscow’s patience was wearing thin over Turkey’s support of subversive elements in Russia and things were coming to a pass in bilateral relations even before the downing of the Russian warplane.
• THE SYRIAN CONFLICT IS IN TRANSITION after nearly five years of what has become a decimating civil war, pitting the Islamic State, al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front, scores of different jihadi organizations and a small number of secular forces against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. So far over 200,000 people have died on both sides and millions of Syrians are internally displaced or have fled the country for a very uncertain future.
Al-Qadea’s Al-Nusra Front troops fighting against the Syrian government.
Hostilities continue but the sudden intervention of Russia and its military forces on the side of Assad in late September dramatically changed the geopolitical landscape and strengthened Syria’s military struggle against rebel forces.
The United States — the regional hegemon toward whom nearly all Arab states offer deference — became a powerful supporter of regime change in Damascus beginning 2011, even though Washington did not dispatch combat troops to join the civil war. Obama’s most reliable supporters in the region are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Gulf monarchies and other Sunni countries seeking to oust Syria’s Alawite/Shia led government. All have provided the rebels with abundant political and financial aid plus military equipment.
The objective of the U.S. and its allies is to replace an Alawite/Shia government friendly to Iran, Iraq and Russia with a Sunni led regime friendly to themselves, but not the fundamentalist regime desired by many of the rebel organizations and some of the Sunni governments. The U.S. and its NATO foreign legion will not allow a jihadi government in Damascus for obvious reasons. At most President Obama will tolerate some representatives of the fighting rebel forces to have a say from obscure posts in a new regime, but nothing more. The regional allies agree because that is what the U.S. wants. If any turned against Washington regime change could be their fate. Other reasons for obeying Obama include the danger they all feel from IS and possibly a reinvigorated al-Qaeda, and the fact that Russia has now become a Middle Eastern power that may give them trouble.
Iran, Iraq and Russia supported the Assad government, but until President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian air force and navy to bombard rebel forces in Syria, their power was limited. Russia is now a major player, and when it talks Washington must listen if not necessarily act.
When Obama demanded that Assad step down in the early months of the war it had nothing to do with democracy, a frequent U.S. justification for regime change. He wanted to extract Syria from its allied relationship with Iran and its long term, mutually advantageous association with Russia, going back before its Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1980 during the Cold War. Washington also acted to cultivate its power relations with Sunni governments in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, that wanted to weaken the Shia Muslim political alliance of geographically contiguous Iran, Iraq and Syria.
The Oval Office has gradually came to realize — long after unsuccessfully seeking to create an anti-Assad leadership coalition largely composed of Syrian exiles — that jihadi militants are virtually in total command of the civil war and that unless dynamics change the removal of Assad c ould lead to a humiliating “terrorist” takeover in Damascus. Obama also was getting criticism because the military campaign against IS was not making sufficient progress.
Enter Russia — bombing rebel jihadis in Syria and the Islamic State while proposing the possibility of a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the Syria crisis. No one can predict the outcome at this stage. Although President Obama has often made clear his reluctance to share an iota of American unilateral “leadership,” he knows but doesn’t wish to acknowledge that Putin pulled him out of two, and now possibly three, of his most difficult dilemmas. Here’s how:
The first was in 2013 when Obama was about to launch a bombing campaign against Syria for allegedly violating his “red-line” against the use of chemical weapons. A majority of the American people and many in Congress opposed the move, but Obama felt he had no alternative that would allow him to save face. Putin then convinced Assad to dispose of his entire chemical arsenal, which provided the White House with a valid reason not to launch an unpopular war. The other instance is when Putin used Russia’s good relations with Iran to help bring about the now successful Washington-Tehran negotiations regarding nuclear matters.
The upcoming UN talks on a temporary cease-fire in the Syrian war and the beginning of discussions on an eventual new Damascus government largely depend on an agreement in next months or years between the U.S. and Russia, despite each supporting the other side in the war.
Most fighting Jihadi rebels and their Sunni Arab and Western supporters want Assad to resign before negotiations for a new government. The Syrian regime and its supporters, including Russia, stipulate that Assad has considerable support in Syria and that he should be part of the decision on candidates. (According to the June 4, 2014, New York Times: “There is no doubt that Mr. Assad has considerable support in parts of Syria.”) It may in time be possible to resolve this exceptionally complex matter — but it is only half the equation.
Here’s the other half: Regarding a cease fire several score well armed and financed Sunni Islamist jihadi rebel fighting organizations are supposed to turn their guns away from the Syrian government and toward powerful Islamic State. The U.S. is behind efforts to help organize and finance this hoped for new coalition (although U.S. troops will not take part). Some Arab countries are supposed to send troops as well as the existing jihadists. The powerful Nusra Front has not been invited to join the coalition because of its al-Qaeda connection but since it views IS as an enemy rival it may well not be a coalition target unless it advances on its own to the gates of Damascus. The Nusra Front has worked in collaboration with many of the “moderate” jihadi groups that are supposed to become part of the coalition.
Washington seems naïve or desperate to think a significant number of jihadis will stop fighting Assad in order to take on the Islamic State even if there are big bribes to do so, unless the deal is to fight IS for a while then go back to displacing Assad. Obama’s latest efforts to create a “moderate” fighting coalition resulted in “four or five” recruits at the preposterous cost — hold your breath — of $500 million before the program was ended. Some rebel groups can no doubt be bought off but it seems possible others might join IS or Nusra Front or continue on their own to battle for Sunni Islamist control of the government.
Islamic State fighters stand guard at a checkpoint in Mosul, Iraq. (Photo: Reuters)
Stratfor’s Dec. 29 summary of the Islamic State’s present strength and weakness in Syria is of interest:
Though far from defeated, [the Islamic State] is nevertheless being harried across several fronts, experiencing significant losses in Syria as well as Iraq…. In northern Syria, the Kurdish-dominated [and U.S. backed] Syrian Democratic Forces are driving their offensive onward, crossing the Euphrates River in numbers after seizing the Tishrin dam [and] are now advancing westward toward the Islamic State-held town of Manbij in northern Aleppo…. Syrian government forces, with backing from foreign militias and the Russian air force, have also been pushing hard into Islamic State territory. The Syrian army is expanding its control over terrain close to the formerly besieged Kweiris air base, where a number of Syrian loyalists held position for years against persistent Islamic State attacks. On Dec. 29 the Syrian government also reportedly took back the strategic town of Maheen, 16 miles from the vital M5 highway controlled by the IS…. The Islamic State is unlikely to be pushed back everywhere in the short term, and it is still capable of carrying out its own offensive operations, as it has done in Deir el-Zour in late December. However, it is increasingly difficult for the group to achieve the major battlefield victories it won previously as it stretches its forces thin and encounters persistent aerial attacks.
According to the Pentagon Jan. 5, IS lost 30% of the territory it once occupied in Iraq and Syria.
• A REGION IN TURMOIL
(1)The gravest charge against President Assad is that he has he killed 250,000 or 300,000 “of his own people,” which has repeatedly been broadcast by many U.S. TV news stations and repeated by a number of Congressional members. (Turkey’s President Erdoğan just upped the figure the other day to 400,000.) Without justifying the government’s seemingly indiscriminant use of “barrel bombs” in populated territory under rebel control, exception must be taken to these intentionally misleading calculations.
The Sept. 14 New York Times reported, after thorough investigation, that there were approximately 200,000 deaths in Syria up to that time, and that there were 84,404 civilian deaths, killed by both the government and the rebel forces. This remains a terrible casualty toll, but to condemn the Assad regime for all of an exaggerated number of civilian deaths is consciously distorted propaganda. According to the Times, the remainder of the deaths were those of government and rebel fighting forces. A few weeks earlier the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which opposes the Assad government, reported Aug. 5 that that 330,000 people died and that 111,624 were civilians killed, obviously by both sides. The total is higher but the percent of civilian deaths of lower. The Times, which opposes Assad, had to be aware of the higher estimate before it decided to rely on its own research.
(2) Long-term religious and political differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia escalated significantly after the Saudi kingdom announced Jan. 2 that it had executed prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, an outspoken resident of the kingdom who sought more rights for the Shia 15% minority mainly residing in Eastern Province, a region with very high oil reserves.The Associated Press reported Jan 4: “Al-Nimr was a central figure in the 2011 Arab Spring-inspired protests by Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority until his arrest in 2012. He was convicted of terrorism charges but denied advocating violence.” BBC reported Nimr was “a persistent critic of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni royal family who was said to have a particularly strong following among Saudi Shia youth. He was arrested several times over the past decade, alleging he was beaten by Saudi secret police during one detention.”
The charges against him were instigating unrest, undermining state security and making anti-government speeches and defending political prisoners. His unforgivable “crime” was openly calling for a more democratic society in a totalitarian theocracy.
Shia religious or political leaders throughout the world, especially in the Middle East, condemned the Riyadh regime for the execution. Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared: “The unjustly spilled blood of this oppressed martyr will no doubt soon show its effect and divine vengeance will befall Saudi politicians.” The leader of Lebanon’s Shia Hezbollah movement, Hassan Nasrallah, accused Saudi Arabia of seeking to ignite a Shia-Sunni civil war across the world.
Protests began in Iran immediately after the news circulated. In one case a large group demonstrators spontaneously attacked the Saudi embassy, sacking part of the interior and starting fires. There evidently were no injuries. The Iranian government disapproved of the attack. Tehran authorities condemned the violence and police have made at least 50 arrests so far. This was not a government project.
Angry peaceful protests were continuing in Iran Jan. 3 when the Saudi regime retaliated by breaking diplomatic relations and expelling all Iran’s diplomats and staff as well as recalling its own embassy staff and ending airline travel between the two countries. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded: “The Saudi government has taken a strange action and cut off its diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran to cover its crimes of beheading a religious leader in its country…. Such actions can’t cover up that big crime.”
Several regional Sunni led countries either broke relations with Iran or reduced diplomatic staff in solidarity with the kingdom. More mary do so. The Arab League will hold an emergency meeting Jan. 10 to discuss the issue.
Tehran protest against killing of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr.
What’s up and what next? In our view, the House of Saud knew precisely what the reaction would be in Iran if it decided to kill al-Nimr. There would at least be a riot in Teheran and profound criticism from Iran and the Shia community worldwide.
The monarchy could have avoided an increase in tensions and a break in relations by simply keeping Nimr in prison. So they killed him, hedging their bets to confuse the situation by executing 47 men the same day. The others were alleged to be Sunni jihadists mainly connected to al-Qaeda who had attacked Saudi Arabia and had been imprisoned for a number of years. By mixing one Shi’ite with 46 Sunnis, who could possibly think the royal family was religiously intolerant?
The royal family sought an open confrontation with Iran for several reasons. Two stand out.
The first emanates from Riyadh’s extreme anger about the U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement and the ending of sanctions on Tehran. Only Israel can match their fury in this regard. Both countries exerted intense pressure on Washington to continue the sanctions and to forego the deal. They wanted Iran permanently impaired, each for their own reasons.
Saudi Arabia has both religious and political reasons for seeking to isolate and weaken the Tehran government and still counts on Washington’s assistance to accomplish the task. As the wealthy leading Sunni country in the Middle East the kingdom is deeply affronted by the existence of a brash, self-confident, militarily superior, independent and non-Arab Muslim Shia regime glaring face to face with itself across the Persian Gulf, a name the royals choke on and wish to change. It is of consequence that the Saudis responded so theatrically after the embassy brouhaha just two weeks after announcing the creation of an important new Sunni military “coalition against terrorism” that the kingdom will lead with U.S. backing (see below).
The Iranian government has a good idea about what’s actually going on. This sectarian chess game has lasted many decades, including when Saudi Arabia last broke relations from 1988 to 1991 over different issues. Tehran doesn’t fall for the one in 47 deception because both sides fully understand it’s only the “one” that counts. The execution was intended to increase tensions, but apparently within limits.
The Iranian government evidently was surprised by the cynical execution of Nimr which they had vigorously warned against in the past, and expressed its rage toward the Saudi regime — but also within certain limits. Threats will go back and forth, and tensions will increase but Tehran does not want this situation to become unacceptably worse; nor, I think, does Saudi Arabia wish it to get out of hand — at lest not yet.
(3) With air support from the U.S. and Russia, or Russia alone, a combination of the armies of Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Kurds could defeat IS on the ground — but the Obama Administration has opposed the formation of such an amalgamation. The reasons are political and geopolitical. He wants more Sunni and less Shia involvement. This will strengthen U.S. regional power.
Syrians outside Russian embassy in Damascus thank Moscow for its intervention. (Photo: AP)
Worldwide, there are 1.6 billion Muslims — 87 to 90% Sunni and 10 to 13% Shia. As global hegemon, the U.S. knows that numbers count far more than state-sponsored religious intolerance. The Shia are thought of, and often treated, as an outcast minority by most Sunni authoritarian states in the Middle East, virtually all of which receive America’s support as long as they genuflect to Washington’s strategic leadership. The fact that the Saudi monarchy and others want to displace Syria’s Alawite-Shia government is a prime reason why Obama has called for Assad’s removal for nearly five years.
The antediluvian Saudi absolute monarchy — Washington’s closest Arab ally since 1945 when the U.S. pledged to protect royal power in return for secure access to the country’s fabulous supply of petroleum — is the leader of the regional anti-Shia campaign, which the Obama Administration has not publicly criticized. The White House has long been aware that the kingdom repeatedly financed Sunni jihadist adventures from the 1970s (in Afghanistan, along with Pakistan and the CIA) to the various rebel groups in Syria today.
For instance, according to Huffington Post in January last year: “A Wikileaks cable clearly quotes then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying ‘donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.’ She continues: ‘More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba which operates in East Asia] and other terrorist groups.’ And it’s not just the Saudis: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are also implicated in the memo. Other cables released by Wikileaks outline how Saudi front companies are also used to fund terrorism abroad.”
Also weighing heavily on White House decisions is the Israeli government’s fabrication that Iran constitutes a threat to its existence, a position evidently shared by vocal majorities in the House and Senate and many liberal Democrats. Obama didn’t allow the Netanyahu regime to bomb Iran, which would have been a catastrophe, and recently reached agreement with unjustly sanctioned Tehran about its nuclear program, throwing billions Netanyahu’s way to calm him down. But in most other respects, except when the Israeli leader purposely humiliates him, Obama easily bends the knee to his manipulative. opportunist and obsessively mistrustful opposite number. But in nearly all cases, what Israel wants Israel gets from Uncle Sam.
Even now, after Obama’s energy policies have resulted in U.S. oil output surpassing that of Saudi Arabia, the U.S. is keeping its original agreement of 70 years with the Saudis. Why? The main reason is because siding with Sunni kingdoms and dictatorships helped keep the USSR at bay at during the Cold War and now assures America’s continued domination of the strategic, fuel-rich Middle East.
Obama will not give permission or any support for a three nation Shia coalition plus the Kurds to unify with ground forces to fight against the Islamic State, especially with Russian air power for a few reasons: It would require ending the regime change war in Syria. It would be a slap in the face to its Sunni allies who might retaliate. It would increase the importance of Russia.
(4) To seal the bargain with the kings and dictators the U.S. enthusiastically supports Saudi Arabia and its allied emirates in their unjust, venomous nine month bombing campaign against Shia-affiliated Houthi rebels in Yemen, the poorest country in the region. Obama has supplied and re-supplied the aggressors with all types of heavy weapons including internationally outlawed cluster bombs, earning the American “defense” industry $13 billion in sales last year. A few years earlier the kingdom stuffed $60 billion in U.S. war industry pockets.
Members of of different tribes in Yemern show support for Houthi militias against Saudi Arabia.
According to Madawi Al-Rasheed, a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science as well as a columnist for Al-Monitor: “The Saudi war on Yemen is not an inevitable war of self-defense [as the kingdom maintains]…. Instead, it was a pre-emptive strike to inaugurate an aggressive Saudi regional foreign policy.”
The UN estimates the human toll in Yemen last year was 8,119 casualties, including 2,795 dead and 5,324 wounded. The New York Times reported Jan 6. that UN “human rights chief, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, told the Security Council in December that the Saudi-led coalition had accounted for a ‘disproportionate amount’ of the damage to infrastructure and civilian premises, including schools and hospitals.”
Sent to do the dirty work by clean-hands-Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry was obliged Nov. 23 to tell embarrassing lies no one actually believes to the foreign minister of a member of the Saudi anti-Yemen coalition Nov. 23: “We respect what United Arab Emirates has been able to do to accomplish significant progress in Yemen. We understand completely and support the reasons that Saudi Arabia and the UAE felt compelled to take acts of self-defense and to protect the security of this region.” Meanwhile, units of both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are exploiting the occasion to grab more territory in Yemen.
(5) On Dec. 15 Saudi Arabia announced the formation of a new 34-state Sunni Islamic military coalition under its own leadership. This extremely important event is not connected to the kingdom’s much smaller anti-Yemen coalition, which continues to plod along. Major countries such as Egypt and NATO’s Turkey are members of the new formation. Syria and Iran were excluded from membership. Shia-governed Iraq was not excluded, evidently due to its continuing relationship with Washington.
Aljazeera reported
“The United States welcomed the announcement of the anti-terrorism alliance. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said: ‘We look forward to learning more about what Saudi Arabia has in mind in terms of this coalition…. But in general, it appears it is very much in line with something we’ve been urging for quite some time, which is greater involvement in the campaign to combat IS by Sunni Arab countries.'”
Washington was obviously involved in developing the new coalition and probably functions behind the scenes as a silent partner. Our surmise is that the Sunni alliance will eventually take moderately more action against the Islamic State — a change in some degree from their miniscule efforts to fight IS up to now. In addition, this new Saudi led military coalition seeks regime change in Syria, regards Shia Islam as a religious betrayal to be shunned, and conceivably might be deployed to politically contain Iran or possible for worse purposes.
“Worse” may be near, or far. The Wahhabi Saud clan has just accumulated substantially more power and authority in the region, and — despite occasional differences in tactics —is blessed by the higher and more powerful strategic authority at the headquarters of modern imperialism on the banks of the Potomac.
Make no mistake. Yemen is Obama’s war, planned, orchestrated and initiated in Washington, using Riyadh and other rogue regional states to do his dirty work.
On January 7, Britain’s Sky News headlined “Exclusive: UK Helping Saudi’s Yemen Campaign” – allied with Washington, complicit in high crimes against peace.
Yemenis are being mass slaughtered, civilians harmed most, indiscriminately targeted.
Britain already supplies Riyadh with terror weapons. “Sky sources confirmed that six (UK) experts are working with Saudi targeteers who select locations for attack” – including residential areas, schools, hospitals, refugee camps, food storage areas, mosques and other nonmilitary sites.
London’s Defense Ministry lied, claiming noninvolvement in warmaking – absurdly saying it’s “training the Saudis to comply with the international rules of war,” according to Sky News. Only fools and morons believe it.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented evidence of excessive Saudi war crimes.
According to HRW’s David Mepham, “(a)t a time when the Saudis and other members of the Gulf coalition are committing multiple violations of the laws of war in Yemen, we’ve documented that.”
HRW produced “numerous reports about what the Saudis are up to in Yemen – that the British are working hand in glove with the Saudis, helping them, enhancing their capacity to prosecute this war that has led to the death of so many civilians.”
Washington and London are complicit in horrendous war crimes, genocidal ones, an entire population at risk, appalling human suffering persisting.
Both countries maintain the pretense of wanting civilians protected – while conspiring to slaughter and starve them, along with denying them vital medical care.
Britain has its own imperial aims. It supplies Riyadh with large amounts of terror weapons. It’s mindless of war crimes and other human rights abuses.
Sky News said UK tory ministers “refused to comment on (its) revelations.” A deliberate Defense Ministry misinformation statement said “UK military personnel are not directly involved in Coalition operations, but are supporting Saudi forces through pre-existing arrangements and additional liaison officers in Saudi headquarters.”
We operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control regimes in the world with each license application assessed on a case by case basis, taking account of all relevant information, to ensure compliance with our legal obligations.
“No license is issued if it does not meet these requirements.”
Truth is polar opposite these bald-faced lies – Britain complicit with US and Saudi high crimes against peace.
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.”
Due to corporate media’s misrepresentation of Syria, some may be surprised to know that Syrians—suffering terribly under nearly five years of the foreign war on their country—are also celebrating Christmas from Damascus to Homs to Aleppo. Glittering displays, street Santas, choirs singing carols and people singing Jingle Bells, and tacky, exuberant Christmas parades are not unique to the West.
However, most Syrians I have met who are celebrating any religion’s holy day do so with heavy hearts—the loss of loved ones to NATO’s terrorists dampens festive spirits. But they also celebrate with a determination not to be cowed into submission or nonexistence, and not to allow their children to forget traditions.
Re-visiting Syria last week, I spoke with many Syrians about Christmas preparations and the situation in Syria. I visited a number of churches in Damascus and Homs. Although the unholy war on Syria persists, some of the areas ravaged by the NATO/Zionists/Gulf’s death squads but secured by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) are coming back to life.
Homs: Celebrations After So Much Sorrow
Rather than home to a “revolution” Homs was home to an infiltration of the most sadistic terrorists, who over their unwanted two plus year-stay not only killed, maimed and stole from Homs residents, but also targeted, and in many cases destroyed, Christian heritage and relics, including many churches in the Old City.
When I visited in June 2014, after the terrorists had been extracted from most of Homs, the destruction and vandalism I saw were immense. Even back then, as soon as the terrorists were gone, Old City residents were already returning in trickles to begin the cleanup and think about re-building their lives.
Now, a year-and-a-half later, while immense reconstruction remains, there was a significant improvement. I saw new shops opened, and saw homes, stores, streets, and churches decorated in the spirit of Christmas.
Christmas lights dangled over Old City lanes and in church courtyards. A friend from Homs later sent me photos of the streets lit up at night, and of the once-burned St. Mary’s Church (Um al-Zinnar) now repaired and decorated, and filled with worshippers, a youth choir and band.
At the Old City’s Jesuit Church, new portraits of Dutch priest, Father Frans van der Lugt, assassinated in April 2014 by the West’s “moderate” terrorists. The church also had a simple Christmas tree and home-made nativity scene, the grotto walls of which were made of crumpled brown paper.
Two well-known restaurants, which suffered differing degrees of destruction, have been re-opened. Beit al-Agha, greatly-damaged by the terrorists, is now coming back to life, although repairs are still needed. Al-Bustan restaurant, which was completely ravaged, is fully re-built and open to customers. Photos from al-Hamidiya Community Facebook page show a packed restaurantduring Christmas, and dancing at night. The page shows celebrations in the different churches and streets of old Homs.
In Saha al-Majaa, an Old City square, I saw six locals adding finishing touches to the Christmas tree they’d crafted using scavenged and bought materials. In a nearby room, full-size nativity scene figures, made of sponge and cloth and other basic materials were stored until the display went up. Neighbourhood residents had chipped in for fabric, bought from Tartous.
Volunteers who chipped in to build a Christmas Tree and Nativity Scene in Old Homs.
“Come, tomorrow at 5 pm and you’ll see the finished display,” I was invited, but didn’t have the chance to get back. However, photos on social media show their creative efforts have paid off: in this square where despair was once deep, hope is flourishing anew.
Damascus Celebrates
Two kilometres from the front line with the extremist and terrorist groups, the people of Damascus Celebrates Christmas.
— Fady, a Damascus resident.
Homs-based Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Bishop George Abu Zakhem was in Damascus for a day. I met him at the Mariamite Church in the centre of the Old City. He spoke of the situation for Orthodox Christians in Homs and Damascus nowadays, noting that of the 150,000 Orthodox in Homs, 20,000 have become internally displaced, fleeing to Tartous, Lattakia, Damascus, and elsewhere. “Nobody wants to leave, but they are obliged, because it’s very hard now.” On the other hand, Homs has also absorbed Syrians from other areas. “We have about 18 families in Homs who came to us from Aleppo. Many others went to Tartous or Lattakia.”
Bishop Abu Zakhem also spoke of efforts to bring back Christmas celebrations to Homs.
In order to change the atmosphere, we tried to do something, especially for the younger generation. We had a program in Homs for 20 days before Christmas… every couple of days we had an event for children.
Ziad, the friendly driver of the shared taxi I had taken from Beirut to Damascus, was from Jebal al-Sheikh, and as we traversed Syrian countryside toward the capital, he spoke of the early attacks: “They kidnapped our priest and even after we paid $15,000 ransom, they killed him and sent his body back to us.”
He and others in his village took up arms to defend themselves. “I have two kids. Nusra came to us. I got a gun,” he said (something I’ve heard from many a Syrian, including the priest of St. Thekla convent in Ma’loula, himself taking up arms to defend the village against Jehbat al-Nusra and other terrorists). As Bishop Abu Zakhm said, “We have the right to stay here, to defend ourselves. We are rooted here.”
One day in Damascus another driver talked about the mortar terrorism which is particularly heavy on Bab Touma (Thomas Gate, in the Old City). “They’re trying to drive the Christians out of Syria. They target Bab Touma because it is a Christian area.” He took out a photo of his son, martyred in terrorist mortars a year ago. For him the terrorism is working. He wants to leave.
Nonetheless, in Bab Touma and throughout the Old City, there were decorations and a vibrancy defying terrorists’ attempts to stifle life. Strings of simple white lights adorned streets and alleys. Carols wafted out of churches which were dressed in Christmas ribbons.
Walking towards Bab Touma one evening, the lilt of carols being sung drew me into the simply adorned St. George’s Cathedral (Syriac Orthodox), full of worshipers, brimming with light and with the faith of Syrians who refuse to die and insist on celebrating life.
St. George’s Cathedral in the old city of Damascus.
Deep in the twisting lanes of the Old City, on the last Thursday before Christmas, a popular restaurant was packed with friends, lovers, and families, meeting before their own family celebrations at Christmas. The friend who took me said that in spite of the huge rise in cost of living over the years (thanks to both the war on Syria and the criminal sanctions), this restaurant has kept its prices relatively affordable.
I was invited to hear the Farah Choir (the Choir of Joy) Christmas concert at the Notre Dame de Damas Church on December 19. However, largely due to a visit to the practicing choir the evening prior by President al-Assad and First Lady Asma al-Assad, the church was packed to the maximum, the line of people wanting to enter extending onto the street. I was able to squirm inside, to standing space at the very back of the large, packed, church and catch a glimpse of the performance. There at the back, the same simple hand-made decorations and nativity scene with its brown paper wall, the same insistence to celebrate Christmas, however simply.
Martyr’s Tree and Mortars
Many of the National Defence Forces (NDF) men and women soldiers I met at Bab Touma, Bab Sharqi (East Gate) are Christian, and like elsewhere in Syria they’ve become soldiers to defend their families, country, and their heritage.
Near Bab Sharqi, I chatted one afternoon with one of the NDF soldiers, Fouad. “We live and die here. But aside from death, there’s no other way we’re leaving here.” Sadly many of Fouad’s NDF friends who felt the same way have indeed been killed, some while fighting terrorists, others by the mortars which terrorists rain down on Damascus routinely. Not far from Bab Sharqi, at the Syriac Catholic Church, a Christmas tree dressed with blinking lights was also adorned with photos of martyred soldiers from the area.
Martyrs’ Tree: paying respect to martyred soldiers from the East Gate neighbourhood of Damascus.
The dome of the St. Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church beside us at Bab Sharqi was punctured with shrapnel. Fouad told me that the Armenian school behind the church has been struck by mortars many a time. Incidents include the killing of six elementary children in November 2013 when terrorist mortars struck both church and school, and the killing of the church Deacon’s own son, along with three other children and a school bus driver, when terrorists mortared the bus. (For more on mortars, see my earlier article: “The Terrorism we Support in Syria: A First-Hand Account of the Use of Mortars Against Civilians”)
Hand-made nativity scene near East Gate, Old Damascus.
As we talked, Fouad mentioned that he and a friend had made the simple nativity scene in front of the church. A tire staircase covered with rough brown cloth led to a platform hosting the nativity scene, backed by the same crumpled brown paper “rock wall” Syrians have crafted for the scene. Friends in the area contributed to it, the decorations on surrounding trees, and the gifts they will give out to around 300 children in the area.
It was the third year they’ve done this, Fouad said, the incentive largely being to distract children from the stress of living under mortars, and to keep the traditions of Christmas alive, “so that they don’t forget what is Christmas.”
I asked him if he had a message for people outside of Syria. His reply:
The problem is that those outside of Syria will not believe unless they come and see with their eyes. We can talk all we want but people won’t believe us. But when they come here and see we are Muslims, Christians, Jews… all religions, and no one asks what your faith is. My good friend is Muslim; he sometimes comes with me to church, and I go with him to mosque.
Volunteerism and Unity
Further along in the Old City, walking towards the Melkite (Greek) Catholic Patriarchate, also known as the Zeitoun Church, I spotted a few men and women wearing vests with a logo reading (in Arabic) Saaed Association, also walking church-wards. The Director, Essam Habel, explained that they are a volunteer group and among their various campaigns they were now decorating a Christmas tree in the church square and baking Christmas treats, helped by around 1,200 mostly student volunteers from a special needs school.
He and another volunteer gave me a lesson in the art of making date-stuffed cookies known as Mahmoul. A video filmed later shows the finished tree, the children participating, and the handing out of sweets to Damascenes. As we walked back toward the tree where volunteers worked, he mentioned that most of the volunteers are Muslim. Syrians continue to reject the sectarianism that outside forces, particularly Saudi Arabia, has attempted to impose on Syria.
As I saw during Orthodox Easter celebrations in April 2014, Muslims join their Christian friends in observing celebrations, whether in restaurants, churches or their own homes, and in the case of Christmas, many put up their own Christmas trees. And every time this issue comes up with friends in Syria, they speak of how they’ve always shared holidays, how they have inter-faith marriages, how they are Syrian before they are any particular faith.
The highest Muslim official in Syria, Grand Mufti Dr. Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun (filmed leading mass in 2013) regularly attends Christian events, has a Christian advisor, and publically speaks on unity and against sectarianism. Mufti Hassoun usually describes himself as Mufti of Syria, not of Muslims in particular.
Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban Political advisor to the Syrian President, told me last week:
I’m a Muslim but I have a Christmas tree in my house, and I always have, since my daughters were born. Now my daughters are in their thirties and their children want Christmas trees. Many of those in Bab Touma (Thomas Gate) celebrating Christmas are Muslims. We go to churches, we celebrate Christmas, because our friends are Christians, we are all living together. Society is not divided along sectarian or ethnic lines.
Elsewhere in Syria
In the ancient Aramaic-speaking village of Ma’loula, terrorized, looted, vandalized and greatly damaged by al-Nusra and other NATO-backed terrorists, life seems to be returning. A Facebook post shows a youth band at the St. Thekla convent enthusiastically playing an out of tune rendition of Jingle Bells. The convent, which I saw on a June 2014 visit to Ma’loula, had been burned and thieved by anti-Syrian terrorists.
While I didn’t get back to Ma’loula this time, as I sat in a home not far from Bab Touma in Damascus, talking with my hosts about the situation in Syria, hearing about their close calls with terrorists’ mortars, I was offered a glass of hand-made wine from Ma’loula. Even now, traditions live on.
Syrian news sites and social media also show Christmas celebrations in Lattakia, Safita (Tartous province)—with a 22 metre high Christmas tree—and Aleppo.
And even now, as Syrians endure more Western-supported terrorism and struggle under criminal sanctions but insist on celebrating, Christian and Muslim friends alike send me Christmas wishes, direct from Syria. The Christmas and daily wish of so many I have spoken with in Syria is for peace to return, for an end to this foreign war on their country.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian freelance journalist and activist who has lived in and written from the Gaza Strip, Syria, and Lebanon. Read other articles by Eva, or visit Eva’s website.
The big news is that a prominent economist – University of California economics prof Brad DeLong – wrote today:
Economist Joe Stiglitz warned back in 2010 that the world risked sliding into a “Great Malaise.” This week, he followed up on that grim prediction, saying, “We didn’t do what was needed, and we have ended up precisely where I feared we would.”
***
Joe Stiglitz is right.
***
In the aftermath of 2008, Stiglitz was indeed one of those warning that I and economists like me were wrong. Without extraordinary, sustained and aggressive policies to rebalance the economy, he said, we would never get back to what before 2008 we had thought was normal.
I was wrong. He was right.
***
Future economic historians may not call the period that began in 2007 the “Greatest Depression.” But as of now, it is highly and increasingly probable that they will call it the “Longest Depression.”
We explained in 2011 that many economists agree we’re in a depression … and they only argue about whether we’re facing the “Great” depression of the 1930s or the “Long” depression of the 1870s. We also noted that housing prices fell farther than during the Great Depression.
We’ve repeatedly pointed out that there are many indicators which show that the last 5 years have been worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s, including:
Indeed, the Federal Reserve admits that all of its policies since 2008 may have been ineffective … even counter-productive. We’ve previously explained: “We are stuck in a depression because the government has done all of the wrong things, and has failed to address the core problems. For example:
For now, Argentina is lost and Venezuela is deeply wounded, divided and frustrated. Virtually everywhere in socialist Latin America, well-orchestrated and angry protests are taking place, accusing our left-wing governments of mismanagement and corruption.
What was gained during those years of hard work and sacrifices, is suddenly evaporating in front of our eyes. And there seems to be no way to stop the trend in the foreseeable future. Whatever magnificent work our governments have done have been smeared. Western propaganda and its local serfs belittle the achievements of our people. In several countries, revolutionary zeal has almost entirely vanished.
*
It is clear, even with an unarmed eye that great progress had been made. Those of us who knew Ecuador two decades ago, (then a depressing country, humiliated and torn by disparities and racism), are now impressed by its wonderful social services, free culture and modern infrastructure.
Indigenous people of Bolivia are proudly in possession of their own land.
Venezuela has been inspiring the entire Latin America and the world by its internationalism and determined struggle against Western imperialism.
Chile, step by small step, has been dismantling the grotesque legacy of Pinochet’s dictatorship, moving firmly towards socialism.
There are hundreds of great and inspiring examples, all over the continent.
In less than two decades, Latin America converted itself from one of the most depressing parts of the world, to the most progressive one.
A few years ago, it really seemed that the Empire had finally lost. There was no way that South Americans would want to go back to the days of darkness. The achievements of socialism were too obvious, too marvelous. Who would want to go back to the gloomy nihilism, depressing feudal structures and the fascist client-state arrangements?
Then the Empire re-grouped. It gathered its local lieutenants, its lackeys, and began striking back with deadly force.
All the means of imperialist propaganda were applied. The goal was to convince people that what they see is not actually real. Another objective was to subvert, to torpedo most of the achievements.
*
We lost elections? What nonsense!
It was clean economic and political terror unleashed against us, and it was the most vicious propaganda, which began forcing out the left wing governments of Latin America from power!
The world was watching, still demanding more Western-style “democracy”, more concessions. The West administered a “Fifth Column” that damaged Latin American revolutions, after infiltrating both media and brains in Caracas, Buenos Aires, even Quito. It consisted especially of the liberals and those so-called ‘progressive forces’; the same people who tried to burry the Cuban revolution after the Soviet Union had been destroyed by Western imperialism. The same people actually who were cheering the demolition of the Soviet Union itself.
They kept pushing for anarchism and for some formulae of “participatory economy”, in fact for their own concepts, for Western, white concepts, for something that most of Latin American people who fought and won their revolutions never asked for!
Jealous and petty, they hate the true powerhouses of resistance against Western imperialism: Russia, China, Iran or South Africa and in fact, even Latin America itself.
Latin American people have always been intuitively longing for big, strong governments, like those in Cuba and those that lately emerged in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. And their natural allies should have been those countries from other, non-Western parts of the world, with powerful people-oriented leadership, not some European and North American individuals representing grotesque and defunct movements and “intellectual” concepts.
In several countries, Latin America lost its way and again got derailed by Western demagoguery. Suddenly there was almost nothing left here of Chinese or Russian or Vietnamese ideas, nothing of internationalism, only Western soft liberal egotists and countless irrelevant marginal groups.
History was forgotten. It was simple, decisive and powerful action by China that single-handedly saved Cuba, when the island-nation was hit by the Gorbachev and Yeltsin disasters. I wrote about it a lot, and Fidel quoted me, agreeing in his “Reflections”.
It was the Soviet Union that stood in solidarity with almost all revolutionary movements of Latin America throughout the 20thcentury. And it was Russia that was backing Chávez during the countless Western attempts to overthrow his government.
*
Playing with anarchism, liberalism and Euro-socialist concepts brought several Latin American revolutions to the brink of absolute calamity.
South America is at the frontline. It is under attack. There is no time for the flowery theories.
I know Latin American revolutionaries. I have met many, from Eduardo Galeano to several Cuban and Sandinista leaders.
I also met many of the South American ‘elites’.
One day, not long after Evo Morales came to power in Bolivia, I spoke to a man, a member of one of the ‘leading’ families, which has in its ranks Senators, owners of mass media outlets, as well as captains of local industry.
“We will get rid of Morales”, he told me, openly. “Because he is a dirty Indian, and because we will not tolerate lefties in this part of the world.”
He was not hiding his plans – he was extremely confident.
We don’t care how much money we have to spend; we have plenty of money. And we have plenty of time. We will use our media and we will create food and consumer goods deficits. Once there is nothing to eat, once there are food lines in all the major cities, as well as great insecurity and violence, people will vote him out of power.
It was clearly the concept used by the Chilean fascist economic and political right wing thugs, before the 1973 US-backed coup against President Salvador Allende. “Uncertainty, shortages”, and if everything failed – then a brutal military coup.
In Bolivia the “elites” tried and tried, but they were not successful, because there was great solidarity with the government of Evo Morales, coming from socialist countries like Brazil and Venezuela. When the Right tried to break the country to pieces, pushing for the independence of the richest, “white” province of Santa Cruz, Brazilian President Lula declared that he was going to send the mightiest army in the South American continent and “defend the integrity of the neighboring country”.
It is beasts, and actually extremely powerful beasts, who are heading the “opposition” in South America.
And to be frank, we can hardly speak about an “opposition”. These are oligarchs, landowners, Christian (many from the Opus Dei) demagogues and military leaders. In many ways they are still the true rulers of the continent.
Nothing except brute force can stop them. They have unlimited financial resources, they have a propaganda machine at their disposal, and they can always count on the Empire to back them up. In fact it is the Empire that is encouraging, training and sustaining them.
*
“Violations of democracy and human rights!” the “opposition” yells, whenever our governments decide to hit back. It is not that we are lately hitting back really hard, but any retaliation is packaged as “brutal”.
What do we in fact do? We arrest just a few of the most outrageous terrorists – those who are openly trying to overthrow or destabilize the state.
But when they, the ‘elites’ and their armies, came to power, they cut open people’s stomachs, and threw them from helicopters straight into the sea.
Their death squads violate children in front of their parents. Female prisoners are raped by specially trained German shepherds dogs, and tubes with starved rats are inserted into their vaginas.
Entire movements and parties are liquidated by fascist South American battalions of death (some of them trained in the United States), but we must use some nice and clean tactics and “democratic means” to prevent them from grabbing power again?
The white, racist, colonialist Christian implants from Europe have been forming so-called South American ‘elites’. They are actually some of the cruelest human beings on Earth. Thanks to them, before our latest wave of Revolutions, Latin America suffered from the greatest disparities on earth. Tens of millions of its people were murdered. It was racially divided. It was plundered. Its veins were, and to a great extent still are, open – to borrow from the terminology of the great storyteller Eduardo Galeano.
How can people still listen to those mass murderers, with a straight face?
*
One thing cannot be disputed: only a big and powerful government and its army could now defend its people. Latin American revolutionary leaders were given a mandate by the people, and they have no right to back up, to betray.
Indecisiveness could prove lethal.
Referendum after referendum, people expressed their support for the revolutionary Proceso, in Venezuela and elsewhere. Year after year the fascist “opposition” has been showing spite for the voices of the people, the same spite it has demonstrated for centuries.
Sabotage after sabotage was administered, one treasonous act after another committed. As was promised by the Bolivian ‘elites’, the Venezuelan capitalist bandits paralyzed their country by shortages. Even rolls of toilet paper became ‘a deficit’. All too familiar… Like in Chile before 1973!
The message is clear: “you want to be able to wipe your ass after shitting, then betray socialism!” Or: “You want to eat? Then down with the legacy of Chávez!”
The will of the people is being humiliated. The elites are spitting straight into the faces of the majority.
Some citizens are now voting for the right, simply because they are exhausted, because they are scared, because they see no solution. They are voting against their own will (as they used to in Nicaragua during the reign of Aleman), because if they vote for their own candidates, they would be made to eat shit, literally.
But solutions are there! They are available.
Instead of listening to some Euro-centric gurus from Slovenia or New England, the Latin American governments should ask for help and lean on such countries as Russia and China, immediately joining alternative financial institutions, forging defense treaties, working on energy and other deals with those who are actually standing up against Western imperialism.
Latin America should never lose its independence. But with proven good friends and true powerful alliances, independence is never lost.
Our leaders should shed their dependency on the Western Left. Mainly because the Western Left does not exist anymore, with some tiny, miniscule exceptions that proves the rule. What remain are a huge army of “liberals”, and then a tremendous multitude of selfish beings defending their own interests and concepts. They are horrified of those who are truly fighting and winning; therefore they openly hate Russia, China and other non-Western nations. Frankly, they are racist. Such people cannot inspire or impress anybody, and so they are trying their luck at the distant shores, diluting determination and perverting the essence of the South American revolutions.
This is the time to be focused. South America should fight, with all its might. It is not easy, but its treasonous families, those who are destroying the precious lives of tens of millions of human beings, should be identified, arrested and tried. It should be done immediately! What many of them are actually doing is not “being in opposition”. They are interrupting the democratic process in their own countries, selling their homelands once again to foreign powers and international capital.
*
Mass media outlets that are spreading misinformation, lies and foreign propaganda should also be immediately identified. They should be exposed, confronted, and if their goal is to destroy the socialist fatherland, shut down. Again, this is no time for liberal niceties.
Freedom of expression has nothing to do with the freedom of using newspapers and television stations to spread fabrications, fear and uncertainty, or to call for the direct overthrow of democratically elected governments.
And in South America, entire huge international newspaper and television syndicates have been working for years and decades for one single and deadly goal – to smear and liquidate the Left, and to deliver the entire continent back to the racist, fascist foreign imperialist rulers.
It has all gone too far, and it has to stop.
A few months ago, I was riding on the impressive Sao Paulo metro system, together with my Cuban friend.
“It is much better than any public transportation network that I have seen in Europe or in the United States”, I exclaimed.
“But people in Brazil think that it is total shit”, commented my friend, laconically.
“How come?” I was shocked.
“Because they are told so on the television, and because they read it in the newspapers”.
Yes, that’s how it is! Free art, including opera, given to the Brazilian public, is nothing more than crap, if one reads the mainstream Brazilian press. Free medical care, no matter how (still) imperfect it is, is not even worth praising. Free education in so many South American countries … New transportation networks, free or heavily subsidized books, brilliant parks with brand new libraries that are mushrooming in Chile and Ecuador… Financial support for the poor, the fight to keep children in school, the fight to save the environment, countless programs to protect indigenous communities…
Nothing, nothing, and absolutely nothing is positive in the eyes of the pro-Western South American propagandists!
This has become one huge counter-process, financed from foreign and local sources, aimed at discrediting all those great achievements.
*
Corruption!!! That is the new battle cry of the elites and their lackeys. Accusations of corruption are fabricated or inflated against all governments of the left: Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, even Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Cristina Kirchner’s back was almost broken by constant corruption charges.
But how on earth could anyone take such accusations seriously, if they are coming from those who have been plundering, for over 500 years, their own continent on behalf of Europe and then the United States and multi-national corporations? Like locust, the right-wing families have been looting all the natural resources, while forcing people into near slave labor. Under horrendous feudal and fascist rulers, Latin America was converted into the pinnacle of corruption – moral and economic.
Nothing was left intact, and nothing remained pure. In order to survive in such a vile system, people had to bend, twist, and maneuver.
Now these same bandit clans that have been destroying the continent are smearing, pointing fingers at the governments that are, step by step, trying to reverse the trend and serve the people.
The same bastards that were bombing restaurants and hotels in their own countries, planting bombs on passenger airliners, and assassinating thousands of innocent people, are talking about morality.
Are our people, our governments, expected to reach, to achieve total purity in just one or two decades, after the entire continent had been functioning for over 500 years as a bordello of Western colonialism and imperialism?
Are we going to allow ourselves to be on the defensive when facing those who robbed and raped almost everything and everybody in Latin America?
*
Yes, the people of Latin America were brutalized for several long centuries. They went through unimaginable suffering. They lost everything. But they never gave up. Since the holocaust performed by Spanish, Portuguese and other European barbaric conquerors, they have been rising, rebelling and fighting for their scarred land.
Pablo Neruda wrote a tremendous poem “Heights of Machu Picchu.” Eduardo Galeano wrote “Open Veins of Latin America”. It is all there, in those two tremendous works.
The fight goes on, to this very moment.
Most of the power is now, finally, in the hands of those who are determined to fight for the interests of their people.
We have no right to be defeated. If we do, hundreds of millions will lose their future and their hope.
Such an opportunity would not come back. It is here, for the first time in 500 years! Millions died to bring it here. If the Revolution is crashed now, it may not return in full force for who knows how many years. In simple terms it means that several more generations would be lost!
We have to counterattack now. What are we waiting for? Of what are we afraid? That the biggest terrorist on Earth – the West – would brand us as undemocratic? That the same West that has, for centuries, overthrown our governments, murdered our leaders as well as simple men, women and children would not give us its stamp of approval? That we would be criticized by those countries, which are still looting, violating, lying and ruining?
Our friends, our allies are not in the West. We all know how lukewarm was the support given to Venezuela, Cuba or Ecuador in Europe and North America by those “progressive forces”, and how hostile was the mainstream. We have to wake up and join forces with those who are now standing proudly and with great determination against Western imperialism and market fundamentalism.
There is no time for experiments. This is the fight for our survival!
As I wrote earlier, in order for the Revolutions to continue, we need big governments, determined cadres, loyal armies and mighty allies. We also need huge Latin American solidarity, true unity and integration. One monolithic South American block in fraternal embrace with other truly independent countries.
This is an extremely serious moment, Comrades! This is damn serious.
Anarchism and the concepts of the factories administered by workers will not save us right now.
Argentina has fallen, but Venezuela is still standing. Each creek, each boulder has now to be defended, be it in Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, Nicaragua or Cuba.
We have to be tough, we have to be alert, and we cannot do it alone!
Venceremos nuevamente, camaradas!
*
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky:On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.
Far too many people were knocked sideways, waking up the morning after Britain’s general election last May, hearing that the Tories had ‘won’ the election? That the majority was small and that they had done it on the support of less than 25% of the electorate was no comfort. What hurt was that the country faced 5 years of unchecked Tory ideology, favouring the rich by hitting the rest.
It was like being kicked in the gut. At least we were not alone in our despair, our inability to watch any news on television, hear it on radio or read it in the papers. The promised dismantling of all that madeBritaina relatively kind, fair place to live was too painful to face. The Tories’ glee was both disgusting and juvenile. It took days for our brains to get back into gear, for our anger to rise above the ashes so we could start to fight back.
Spirits rose from the moment Jeremy Corbyn entered the Labour leadership race. Thousands regained their hopes, rejoined the Labour Party or signed up as supporters. The more the remnants of the Blairite clique uttered dire warnings of the utter ruination and death of the Labour Party, the more people climbed on board.
But the day after Corbyn became leader the fight to get rid of him started. Labour MPs were promising to unseat him – I was going to say ‘left, right and centre’, but that was patently not so. Anyone, whether Labour MP, Party member or just the man in the street who supported Corbyn was labelled as ‘hard left’. We still are, even though we reject the label.
Day by day there has been a constant drip, drip of ‘stories’ against Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and others on his team, fed by anonymous Labour MPs and seized by an avid media which, being almost totally right-wing, were as desperate to topple Corbyn as the Blairites.
That Corbyn has doubled the Party membership doesn’t matter. That the majority of Labour Party members support Corbyn doesn’t matter. Indeed, one MP tried to say the membership was irrelevant; it was the constituents who had voted for Labour MPs. Yet, whether members or constituents, a majority of the British actually support many of the policies Corbyn advocates also apparently doesn’t matter.
When Corbyn reached his first 100 days as leader, there was an orgy of regurgitated stories about all the things he did ‘wrong’ – like not singing the national anthem, even though photos showed that several others standing around also had their mouths shut. He ‘wasn’t going to bow to the Queen’, even though it turned out not to be mandatory.
And he didn’t bow enough when laying his wreath at the Cenotaph during the Remembrance Day ceremony – though the fact that all the other ‘important’ politicians rushed off to lunch while he stayed and spoke to war veterans should have stopped the press from making a fool of itself.
A few of the ‘100 days’ articles were honest enough to include some of his triumphs – a successful Labour Party Conference; Labour unexpectedly winning a bye-election with an increased majority; making David Cameron look small at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) by refusing to play the ‘Yah Boo’ game so beloved by our less than impressive politicians.
Sadly, Cameron has returned, to cheers from Tory MPs, to his horribly shouty, nasal voice and refusal to actually answer any questions – which is what he is there for. Instead, he sidesteps them by making fun of Corbyn with very stupid jokes. It is shaming to have a Prime Minister like this.
Considering the mainstream, centre-right, moderate (just kidding, folks!) Blairite Labour MPs were planning to oust him before he had even been elected, you would think the press might admit he’d done rather better than expected. But no. It was obvious that much of their coverage was based on the hope of persuading the public there wouldn’t be another 100 days.
The Tories really don’t have to do anything except hope that Labour will implode, leaving us with a one-party state. Those Labour MPs who don’t want a return to decent values, who don’t give a toss about their members and who don’t want to lose their cosy ‘importance’ are welcomed with open arms by the media. Stories and exclusives were and are the order of the day.
And then along came the shadow cabinet reshuffle, headlined weeks before the fact, based on rumours and unknown sources, speculated on, pored over and picked apart before it ever happened. The ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ Peter Mandelson, writing in the Guardian, only demonstrated how very yesterday’s man he is. One would have thought Corbyn was going to appoint a whole new team.
The media coverage, the scrum of journalists listening at keyholes, reporting every ill-considered rumour without checking the facts, seemed to make it appear they were covering the total collapse of the Kingdom, the Queen dying and London being inundated by the very floods that were ruining northern England and Scotland. So what actually happened?
One or two shadow ministers got relocated. Two got sacked for ‘disloyalty’. So screamed the press, pointing out that the MPs in question had ‘always followed the party whip’. But was that where their disloyalty lay? Corbyn and McDonnell, being the decent people they are would never make this kind of thing public but one wonders, was the disloyalty charge based on all those disclosures to the media by ‘unnamed sources’?
And one shadow minister actually resigned on television – and the media went wild. But, according to the website Pride’s Purge, the editor of the BBC’s Daily Poilitics show Andrew Alexander wrote on his blog that this was not only arranged by theBBC to take place just before Prime Minister’s Questions, it was their idea.
Alexander wrote:
…we took a moment to watch the story ripple out across news outlets and social media. Within minutes we heard David Cameron refer to the resignation during his exchanges with Jeremy Corbyn.
During our regular debrief after coming off air at1pmwe agreed our job is always most enjoyable when a big story is breaking – but even more so when it’s breaking on the programme.
This has now been removed from Alexander’s blog. The mainstream papers picked up the story but will theBBCsuffer for its blatant manipulation of political events? I doubt it. Someone might resign or be moved sideways but the BBC, constitutionally required to be impartial, will, along with its fellows, go on being biased against anything to do with Corbyn.
But the enemy has now made itself very visible. We, the citizens of this country, are facing something which can only be called fascist in its intent to control our lives to our detriment. This is what we have to fight, and go on fighting, if we the people are to survive.
How Corbyn and his allies keep their cool under all this onslaught is only to be admired and supported for their very adult restraint. Because the enemy within the Labour Party is, so hinted John McDonnell at a public event in November, just a small number of MPs; MPs who have good access to mainstream media. Other MPs, sadly, are still sitting on the fence, waiting to see which way the wind blows.
They need to be reminded that the majority does lie with Corbyn and his team. They need to be reminded that their enemy is not Corbyn but Tory ideology. They need to be reminded that it is the Tories they have to fight, not their own party.
The storm of sheer nastiness from those who oppose the Labour leader is based on one thing – that what he, or rather his vision, offers is a huge threat to those who hold power. If, please God, it is ever realised it will mean that for the first time people, not power and money, might be running the country.
The Tories, the media and the Blairites are terrified. Let’s keep them that way. Frightened people make mistakes.
Nuclear weapons have always had a habit of inviting games of perception. Will the state in possession of a nuclear option make use of it? Obviously, there is always precedent that any state with an option will, at some point, make do with it. The importance here is one of perception.
The DPRK has tended to be in the business of mastering perceptions over reality for much of its existence. In many ways, it has had to. In the face of a dominant United States, a retreating Russia, and a China that has proven to be more qualified about its support, Pyongyang has become more boisterous and terrier-like in its pronouncements.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a firm reminder that a state that under-valued its claims to have terrible weapons of mass murder might become unfortunate candidates for regime change. Pyongyang learned a lesson Saddam Hussein did not: exaggerate, embellish and if not outright lie about having the means to create a ring of fire from Tokyo to Alaska. Never mind that it might physically impossible to execute it.
Much of the North Korean nuclear program has been a case of speculation – again, an issue of mastering perception. Have previous tests been successful? Is much of it just colourful talk? Its first test did not cut the mustard, necessitating a second one which yielded between 2 and 7 kilotons. (To place this in perspective, the Hiroshima atomic blast was 15 kilotons.). Subsequent tests have been better, though not by much.
On January 5, 2016, reports came out of a seismic event close to Puggye-ri, a North Korean test site. What followed were customary triumphal announcements that the regime had been successful in testing a hydrogen weapon, made to spectators standing in the Kim II Sung Square in the capital. (The vintage stretches back to post-test announcements in 2006, 2009, and 2013.)
“There took place,” according to the Korean Central news Agency, “a world startling event to be specifically recorded in national history… The DPRK proudly joined the advanced ranks of nuclear weapons possessing the H-Bomb.”[1] Experts were quick to dismiss the claim about this self-admission to the ranks. At most, the test might have been be a “boosted-fission” weapon with a fusion additive.
The important point here remains trickery and unsettling counterparts, a mentality derived from what Scott Synder calls the “guerrilla partisan experience” sharpened by Japanese occupation.
“The guerrilla partisan experience, through which leaders feel unconstrained by norms that might limit options of full-fledged members of the international community, has had direct application to and influence on North Korean preferences for crisis diplomacy and brinkmanship to gain the attention and respect of negotiating counterparts.”[2]
In 1985, it even went so far as to become a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an arrangement it proceeded to avoid with disdain. When needed, it has sought to cultivate powers to receive enriched uranium hardware in exchange for other weapons expertise.
North Korea relies on the sort of troubled mentality nourished by such figures as US President Bill Clinton’s former defence chief William Perry. Just a few hours prior to Pyongyang’s weapon’s test, he claimed that, “The probability of a nuclear calamity is higher today, I believe, that it was during the cold war.” Perry also fears “substantial miscalculation” and false alarms.[3] Such rich soil to till!
The strategy stemming from the North Korean leadership is a combination of irritating gnat and dangerous flea. China can be played off against the Japan-South Korean and US front. Moscow can also be potentially embroiled at stages, though it has proven less enthusiastic about Pyongyang’s antics in recent years.
These are not watertight considerations – the continuing attractiveness of seeing Beijing as a vital and determining factor behind reining in Kim Jong-un is fanciful at best. The North Korean regime was alarmed once China took the road of economic modernisation in the 1980s. There would be no Deng economic plan north of the 38th parallel. Increasingly, the sides do not see eye to eye, with Beijing regarding the DPRK as greater nuisance than ally.
North Korea has become the hermit state par excellence, cruel to its populace but determined to sustain its weakened form in the face of hostile powers. It is a case study against sanctions, which have at most only served to injure its own population rather than undermine the state’s ambitions.
Such measures will no doubt be sought again in the UN Security Council. Again, they will have little effect on the weapons program. If anything, they simply supply the regime with its raison d’être of further accelerating weapons programs in the face of an existential threat.
Despite all that, such publications as The Economist insist that Pyongyang is getting away with too much. “Financial sanctions can be made to bite deeper by more closely monitoring banking transactions. And the Vienna convention should not give cover to envoys engaged in criminality.”[4] Subsidies from China, it argues, could also be squeezed; the money life line cut off with greater determination.
In the meantime, each test, however advanced or rudimentary, provides data the DPRK’s scientists and engineers will be able to use to enhance both fission efficiency and the means of delivering a device. It is precisely that sort of capacity that the regime will keep up its sleeve, if for no other reason it wishes everyone to believe it has one.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
La roadmap per la cooperazione tecnico-militare Nato-Ucraina, firmata in dicembre, integra ormai a tutti gli effetti le forze armate e l’industria bellica di Kiev in quelle dell’Alleanza a guida Usa. Manca solo l’entrata formale dell’Ucraina nella Nato. Il presidente Poroshenko ha annunciato a tal fine un «referendum» in data da definire, preannunciando una netta vittoria dei «sì» in base a un «sondaggio» già effettuato. Da parte sua la Nato garantisce che l’Ucraina, «uno dei partner più solidi dell’Alleanza», è «fermamente impegnata a realizzare la democrazia e la legalità».
I fatti parlano chiaro. L’Ucraina di Poroshenko – l’oligarca arricchitosi col saccheggio delle proprietà statali, del quale il premier Renzi loda la «saggia leadership» – ha decretato per legge in dicembre la messa al bando del Partito comunista d’Ucraina, accusato di «incitamento all’odio etnico e violazione dei diritti umani e delle libertà».
Vengono proibiti per legge gli stessi simboli comunisti: cantare l’Internazionale comporta una pena di 5–10 anni di reclusione. È l’atto finale di una campagna persecutoria analoga a quelle che segnarono l’avvento del fascismo in Italia e del nazismo in Germania. Sedi di partito distrutte, dirigenti linciati, giornalisti seviziati e assassinati, attivisti bruciati vivi nella Camera del Lavoro di Odessa, inermi civili massacrati a Mariupol, bombardati col fosforo bianco a Slaviansk, Lugansk, Donetsk. Un vero e proprio colpo di stato sotto regia Usa/Nato, col fine strategico di provocare in Europa una nuova guerra fredda per colpire e isolare la Russia e rafforzare, allo stesso tempo, l’influenza e la presenza militare degli Stati uniti in Europa.
Quale forza d’assalto sono stati usati, nel putsch di piazza Maidan e nelle azioni successive, gruppi neonazisti appositamente addestrati e armati, come provano le foto di militanti di Uno-Unso addestrati nel 2006 in Estonia.
Le formazioni neonaziste sono state quindi incorporate nella Guardia nazionale, addestrata da centinaia di istruttori Usa della 173a divisione aviotrasportata, trasferiti da Vicenza in Ucraina, affiancati da altri della Nato.
L’Ucraina di Kiev è così divenuta il «vivaio» del rinascente nazismo nel cuore dell’Europa. A Kiev arrivano neonazisti da mezza Europa (Italia compresa) e dagli Usa, reclutati soprattutto da Pravy Sektor e dal battaglione Azov, la cui impronta nazista è rappresentata dall’emblema ricalcato da quello delle SS Das Reich.
Dopo essere stati addestrati e messi alla prova in azioni militari contro i russi di Ucraina nel Donbass, vengono fatti rientrare nei loro paesi con il «lasciapassare» del passaporto ucraino. Allo stesso tempo si diffonde in Ucraina l’ideologia nazista tra le giovani generazioni. Se ne occupa in particolare il battaglione Azov, che organizza campi di addestramento militare e formazione ideologica per bambini e ragazzi, ai quali si insegna anzitutto a odiare i russi.
Ciò avviene con la connivenza dei governi europei: per iniziativa di un parlamentare della Repubblica Ceca, il capo del battaglione Azov Andriy Biletsky, aspirante «Führer» dell’Ucraina, è stato invitato al Parlamento europeo quale «oratore ospite».
Il tutto nel quadro dell’«Appoggio pratico della Nato all’Ucraina», comprendente il «Programma di potenziamento dell’educazione militare» al quale hanno partecipato nel 2015 360 professori ucraini, istruiti da 60 esperti Nato.
In un altro programma Nato, «Diplomazia pubblica e comunicazioni strategiche», si insegna alle autorità a «contrastare la propaganda russa» e ai giornalisti a «generare storie fattuali dalla Crimea occupata e dall’Ucraina orientale».
Dopo l’annuncio di Pyongyang di aver effettuato il test sotterraneo di una bomba nucleare all’idrogeno, il presidente Obama, pur mettendo in dubbio che si tratti veramente di una bomba all’idrogeno, chiede «una risposta internazionale forte e unitaria al comportamento incosciente della Corea del Nord». Dimentica però che sono stati proprio gli Usa a fornire alla Corea del Nord le più importanti tecnologie per la produzione di armi nucleari. Lo documentammo sul manifesto 13 anni fa (5 febbraio 2003).
La storia inizia quando – dopo essere stato segretario alla difesa nell’amministrazione Ford negli anni Settanta e, negli anni Ottanta, consigliere del presidente Reagan per i sistemi strategici nucleari – Donald Rumsfeld entra a far parte nel 1996 del consiglio di amministrazione della ABB (Asea Brown Boveri), gruppo leader nelle tecnologie per la produzione energetica. Rumsfeld esercita subito la sua influenza per far avere alla ABB l’autorizzazione di Washington a fornire tecnologie nucleari alla Corea del Nord, nonostante essa abbia già un programma nucleare militare. Neppure tre mesi dopo, il 16 maggio 1996, il Dipartimento statunitense dell’energia annuncia di aver «autorizzato la ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems, una consociata interamente controllata dalla ABB, a fornire una vasta gamma di tecnologie, attrezzature e servizi per la progettazione, costruzione, gestione operativa e mantenimento di due reattori nella Corea del Nord». Il Dipartimento statunitense dell’energia – responsabile non solo del nucleare civile, ma anche della produzione di armi nucleari – sa che tali reattori possono essere usati anche a scopi militari, e che le conoscenze e tecnologie fornite possono anch’esse essere utilizzate per un programma nucleare militare. La ABB può così stipulare nel 2000 con la Corea del Nord due grossi contratti per la «fornitura di componenti nucleari». In quel momento Rumsfeld è ancora nel consiglio di amministrazione della ABB, da cui si dimette nel gennaio 2001, quando assume l’incarico di segretario alla difesa nell’amministrazione Bush.
Nel 2003, la Corea del Nord annuncia il suo ritiro dal Trattato di non-proliferazione (Tnp), a cui aveva aderito nel 1985. I «colloqui a sei» (Usa, Russia, Cina, Giappone, Nord Corea, Sud Corea) per il suo rientro nel Tnp, subito iniziati, si interrompono nel 2006 quando la Corea del Nord effettua il primo dei suoi quattro test nucleari. Successivamente riprendono, ma si interrompono di nuovo nel 2009. La responsabilità non è solo di Pyongyang. Poiché il Trattato di non-proliferazione continua ad essere violato anzitutto dagli Stati uniti, primi firmatari, a Pyongyang sono arrivati alla cruda conclusione che è meglio avere le armi nucleari che non averle.
Il Tnp obbliga gli Stati dotati di armi nucleari a non trasferirle ad altri (Art.1), e gli Stati non in possesso di armi nucleari a non riceverle (Art. 2). Obbliga allo stesso tempo tutti gli Stati firmatari, a partire da quelli con armi nucleari, ad adottare «effettive misure per la cessazione della corsa agli armamenti nucleari e il disarmo nucleare» fino a «un Trattato che stabilisca il disarmo generale e completo» (Art. 6). Obbliga inoltre tutti gli Stati firmatari a «rinunciare, nelle loro relazioni internazionali, all’uso della forza contro l’integrità territoriale o l’indipendenza politica di qualsiasi Stato» (preambolo).
L’esempio di come si debba operare per il disarmo nucleare, lo danno soprattutto gli Stati uniti. Essi hanno varato un piano, del costo di 1000 miliardi di dollari, per potenziare le forze nucleari con altri 12 sottomarini da attacco, armato ciascuno di 200 testate nucleari, e 100 nuovi bombardieri strategici, ciascuno armato di oltre 20 testate nucleari. Contemporaneamente, violando il Tnp, stanno per schierare in cinque paesi Nato – quattro europei più la Turchia, che violano anch’essi il Tnp – circa 200 nuove bombe nucleari B61-12, di cui circa 70 in Italia con una potenza equivalente a quella di 300 bombe di Hiroshima. Le forze nucleari Usa/Nato, comprese quelle francesi e britanniche, dispongono di circa 8000 testate nucleari, di cui 2370 pronte al lancio, a fronte di altrettante russe, tra cui 1600 pronte al lancio. Aggiungendo quelle cinesi, pachistane, indiane, israeliane e nordcoreane, il numero totale delle testate nucleari viene stimato in 16300, di cui 4350 pronte al lancio. E la corsa agli armamenti nucleari prosegue soprattutto con la continua modernizzazione degli arsenali.
Come si debba «rinunciare all’uso della forza contro l’integrità territoriale o l’indipendenza politica di qualsiasi Stato», lo dimostrano sempre gli Stati uniti e la Nato. Con la prima guerra contro l’Iraq nel 1991, la Jugoslavia nel 1999, l’Afghanistan nel 2001, l’Iraq nel 2003, la Libia nel 2011, la Siria dal 2013. E nel 2014 con il colpo di stato in Ucraina, funzionale alla nuova guerra fredda e al rilancio della corsa agli armamenti nucleari. Per questo la lancetta dell’«Orologio dell’apocalisse», il segnatempo simbolico che sul «Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists» indica a quanti minuti siamo dalla mezzanotte della guerra nucleare, è stata spostata da 5 a mezzanotte nel 2012 a 3 a mezzanotte nel 2015. Ciò a causa non tanto del «comportamento incosciente» di Pyongyang, quanto del «comportamento cosciente» di Washington.
Il «segreto» Usa Il ministro Donald Rumsfeld allerta i bombardieri atomici contro la Corea del nord a cui lui stesso – quando era a capo dell’Abb – ha fornito tecnologie nucleari
«Donald H. Rumsfeld diffida della Corea del nord», così dice la didascalia della foto pubblicata ieri da The New York Times con l’articolo in cui si annuncia che «il segretario alla difesa ha messo in stato di allerta 24 bombardieri a lungo raggio per un possibile spiegamento a distanza di tiro dalla Corea del nord». Ciò allo scopo di impedire che la Corea del nord approfitti del «momento in cui Washington è concentrata sull’Iraq», per accelerare il suo programma nucleare: Pyongyang – informa la Cia – ha cercato di costruire armi nucleari procurandosi tecnologie e impianti, da usare in apparenza a scopi civili, in realtà a scopi militari. Allo stesso tempo, l’ordine di Rumsfeld di attivare i bombardieri strategici serve a «dare al Presidente opzioni militari se la diplomazia non riesce a bloccare lo sforzo della Corea del nord di produrre armi nucleari». Avevano dunque ragione i funzionari del Pentagono quando, il 1 febbraio, hanno dichiarato al Los Angeles Times che «il segretario alla difesa Donald Rumsfeld, anche se sta preparando una possibile guerra contro l’Iraq, è immerso nella crisi nord-coreana». In effetti, Donald Rumsfeld vi è immerso più di quanto si creda.
La storia inizia quando – dopo essere stato segretario alla difesa nell’amministrazione Ford nel 1975-77 e, nel 1983-84, consigliere del presidente Reagan per i sistemi strategici nucleari e inviato per il Medio Oriente – Donald Rumsfeld entra a far parte nel 1996 del consiglio di amministrazione della ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) Ltd., gruppo leader nelle tecnologie per la produzione energetica e l’automazione, con quartier generale in Svizzera e affiliate in oltre 100 paesi di Europa, Asia, Medio Oriente, Africa e Americhe. L’appartenenza di Rumfeld al consiglio di amministrazione della ABB risulta dalla biografia ufficiale pubblicata dalla Nato e dal comunicato ufficiale della ABB (Election of ABB Board members and Chairman of the Board, Zurigo, 28 febbraio 1996), in cui si evidenzia che Rumsfeld ha ricoperto il prestigioso incarico di segretario statunitense alla difesa.
Neppure tre mesi dopo che l’ex segretario alla difesa è entrato nel consiglio di amministrazione della ABB, il dipartimento statunitense dell’energia (Doe) annuncia, il 16 maggio 1996, di aver «autorizzato la ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (C-E), una consociata interamente controllata dalla ABB (Asea Brown Bovery) Inc. con base nel Connecticut, a fornire una vasta gamma di tecnologie, attrezzature e servizi per la progettazione, costruzione, gestione operativa e mantenimento di due reattori che devono essere costruiti nella Corea del nord» (DOE Approves U.S. Involvement in the Construction of Reactors in North Korea, 16 maggio 1996).
Anche se si tratta di due reattori civili ad «acqua leggera» (light water), il dipartimento statunitense dell’energia – responsabile non solo del nucleare civile, ma anche della produzione di armi nucleari – sa che essi possono essere usati anche a scopi militari: reattori termici come questi, che funzionano a uranio arricchito al 4-5%, producono plutonio utilizzabile per la costruzione di armi nucleari. Inoltre, le conoscenze e tecnologie fornite possono anch’esse essere utili allo sviluppo di un programma nucleare militare.
Tutto questo lo sa anche Donald Rumsfeld, essendo stato segretario alla difesa e consigliere del presidente per i sistemi strategici nucleari. Nonostante ciò, egli sicuramente esercita la sua influenza per far avere alla ABB l’autorizzazione ufficiale statunitense a fornire tecnologie nucleari alla Corea del nord, nonostante che essa sia indiziata di possedere un programma nucleare militare.
La ABB può così stipulare nel 2000 con la Corea del nord due contratti, del valore di 200 milioni di dollari, per la «progettazione, costruzione e fornitura di componenti per due reattori nucleari da 1.000 megawatt» (ABB to deliver systems, equipment to North Korean nuclear plants, Zurigo, 20 gennaio 2000). Al momento del contratto, Rumsfeld è ancora nel consiglio di amministrazione della ABB, da cui si dimette quando assume l’incarico di segretario alla difesa nell’amministrazione Bush, insediatasi il 20 gennaio 2001. Le sue dimissioni vengono comunicate dalla ABB circa un mese dopo (ABB announces proposed Board, share split, Zurigo, 19 febbraio 2001).
Ora lo stesso Rumsfeld allerta i bombardieri contro la Corea del nord, accusata di utilizzare i reattori e il materiale fissile per costruire armi nucleari. Lo stato di allerta, ha dichiarato il Pentagono, è stato deciso alla vigilia della sessione di emergenza dell’Agenzia internazionale per l’energia atomica, che il 12 febbraio metterà sotto accusa la Corea del nord per violazione del Trattato di non proliferazione nucleare. Si apre così, mentre si sta preparando la guerra all’Iraq, la crisi da cui potrebbe derivare la successiva guerra. Intanto, il possibile schieramento di 12 B-52 e 12 B-1, bombardieri strategici a doppia capacità nucleare e convenzionale, sull’isola di Diego Garcia nell’Oceano Indiano dove si stanno trasferendo i bombardieri B-2 Spirit per l’attacco all’Iraq, permette al Pentagono non solo di minacciare la Corea del nord, ma di accrescere la forza aerea da usare contro l’Iraq. Quello stesso Iraq che lo stesso Donald Rumsfeld aiutò efficamente nella guerra contro l’Iran, quando nel 1983-84 ricopriva l’incarico di inviato speciale del presidente Reagan in Medio Oriente (v. il manifesto, 20-8-2002).
E’ una sua specializzazione, quella di aiutare prima gli «stati canaglia» per poi attaccarli.
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East – from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin America.
Following his re-election in 2012, Obama announced what was called a ‘pivot’ to Asia to contain and check China’s growing economic and political influence. In 2013-14, it was the U.S.-directed Ukraine coup – i.e. a pretext for sanctions on Russia designed to sever that country’s growing economic relations with Europe. But there is yet another U.S. policy shift underway that is perhaps not as evident as the refocus on China or the U.S. new ‘cold war’ offensive against Russia. It is the U.S. pivot toward Latin America, begun in 2014, targeting in particular the key countries and economies of South America – Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina – for economic and political destabilization as a fundamental requisite for re-introduction of Neoliberal policies in that region.
Venezuela: Case Example of Destabilization
Economic destabilization in its most recent phase has been underway in Venezuela since 2013. The collapse of world oil and commodity prices, a consequence in part of the United States vs. Saudi fight that erupted in 2014 over who controls the global price of oil, has caused the Venezuela currency, the Bolivar, to collapse. The United States raising its long term interest rates the past year has intensified that currency collapse. But U.S. government and banking forces have further fanned the flames of currency collapse by encouraging speculators, operating out of Colombia and the ‘DollarToday’ website, to ‘short’ the Bolivar and depress it still further. U.S. based media, in particular the arch-conservative CATO institute in Washington, has joined in the effort by consistently reporting exaggerated claims of currency decline, as high as 700 percent, to panic Venezuelans to further dump Bolivars for dollars, thus causing even more currency collapse. Meanwhile, multinational corporations in Venezuela continue to hoard more than US$11 billion in dollars, causing the dollar to rise and the Bolivar to fall even more. The consequence of all these forces contributing to collapse of the currency is a growing black market for dollars and shortages of key consumer and producer goods.
But all that’s just the beginning. Currency collapse in turn means escalating cost of imports and domestic inflation, and thus falling real incomes for small businesses and workers. The black market and dollar shortage due means inability to import critical goods like medicines and food. Rising cost of imports means lack of critical materials needed to continue production, which results in falling production, plant and business closures, and rising unemployment.
Currency collapse, inflation, and recession together result in capital flight from the country, which in turn exacerbates all the above again. A vicious cycle of general economic collapse thus ensues, for which the popular government is blamed but which it has fundamentally not caused.
As this scenario in Venezuela since 2014 has worsened, the United States has targeted Venezuela’s state owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, with legal suits. The Obama government in March 2015 also issued executive orders freezing assets of Venezuelan government and military representatives charged with alleged ‘human rights’ abuses. The United States then recently arrested Venezuelan businessmen in the United States, holding them without bail, no doubt to send a message to those who might still support the government. The U.S. government has also indicted Venezuelan government and military officials recently with charges of alleged drug conspiracy, including National Guard generals who have supported the Maduro government. This all raises impressions of government corruption with the public, while giving second thoughts to other would-be military and government supporters to ‘think twice’ about their continuing support and perhaps to consider ‘going over’ to the opposition in exchange for a ‘deal’ to drop the legal charges. The popular impression grows that the economic crisis, the inflation, the shortages, the layoffs must all be associated with the corruption, which is associated with the government. It is all classic U.S. destabilization strategy.
As all the above economic dislocation has occurred in Venezuela, money has flowed through countless unofficial channels to the opposition parties and their politicians, enabling them to capture earlier this month control of the national assembly. The leaders of the new assembly, according to media leaks, now have plans to reconstitute the Venezuelan Supreme Court to support their policies and to legally endorse their coming direct attack the Maduro government in 2016. It is clear the goal is to either remove Maduro and his government or to render it impossible to govern.
As Julio Borges, a possible next president of the national assembly, has declared publicly in recent days: if the Maduro government does not go along with the new policies of the Assembly, “it will have to be changed.” No doubt impeachment proceedings, to try to remove Maduro, will be soon on the agenda in Venezuela – just as it now is in Brazil. But for that, the Venezuelan Supreme Court must be changed, which makes it the immediate next front in the battle.
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come
Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina. Argentina’s Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent, allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government’s intent to stack the supreme court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine’s recent media law. And that’s just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina, Venezuela’s new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country’s also recently re-elected president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher stage in 2016.
I stayed up about two hours past my usual bedtime to watch the New Years Eve celebration in Times Square.
For one reason only.
To see happy people.
A year like 2015 can do that to you.
The sight of many thousands of young people standing in the cold for hours, hugging and kissing, screaming and laughing, was very precious.
Also a bit unnerving. What’s wrong with them? Don’t they know what kind of world they’re living in? Don’t they know that their celebration is a prime target for terrorists?
Well … nothing happened … thank you God that I don’t believe in … try and keep that up …
Christopher Hitchens, in 2007, in response to conservative columnist Michael Gerson’s article: “What Atheists Can’t Answer”, wrote: “How insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship … simply assumes, whether or not religion is metaphysically ‘true’, that at least it stands for morality. … Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made or one ethical action performed by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.”
Gerson, great champion of morality, it should be noted, was a speechwriter for George W. Bush. God help us. And pray that Bush and Cheney remain alive long enough to hang.
Dear readers … think … just imagine … What if THIS is the afterlife?
Happy New Year.
Vulgar, crude, racist and ultra-sexist though he is, Donald Trump can still see how awful the American mainstream media is.
I think one of the main reasons for Donald Trump’s popularity is that he says what’s on his mind and he means what he says, something rather rare amongst American politicians, or politicians perhaps anywhere in the world. The American public is sick and tired of the phoney, hypocritical answers given by office holders of all kinds. When I read that Trump had said that Senator John McCain was not a hero because McCain had been captured in Vietnam, I had to pause for reflection. Wow! Next the man will be saying that not every American soldier who was in the military in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq was a shining hero worthy of constant media honor and adulation.
When Trump was interviewed by ABC-TV host George Stephanopoulos, former aide to President Bill Clinton, he was asked:
“When you were pressed about [Russian president Vladimir Putin’s] killing of journalists, you said, ‘I think our country does plenty of killing too.’ What were you thinking about there? What killing sanctioned by the U.S. government is like killing journalists?”
Trump responded:
“In all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t seen that. I don’t know that he has. Have you been able to prove that? Do you know the names of the reporters that he’s killed? Because I’ve been – you know, you’ve been hearing this, but I haven’t seen the name. Now, I think it would be despicable if that took place, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he killed anybody in terms of reporters.”
Or Trump could have given Stephanopoulos a veritable heart attack by declaring that the American military, in the course of its wars in recent decades, has been responsible for the deliberate deaths of many journalists. In Iraq, for example, there’s the Wikileaks 2007 video, exposed by Chelsea Manning, of the cold-blooded murder of two Reuters journalists; the 2003 US air-to-surface missile attack on the offices of Al Jazeera in Baghdad that left three journalists dead and four wounded; and the American firing on Baghdad’s Hotel Palestine the same year that killed two foreign news cameramen.
It was during this exchange that Stephanopoulos allowed the following to pass his lips: “But what killing has the United States government done?”
Do the American TV networks not give any kind of intellectual test to their newscasters? Something at a fourth-grade level might improve matters.
Prominent MSNBC newscaster Joe Scarborough, interviewing Trump, was also baffled by Trump’s embrace of Putin, who had praised Trump as being “bright and talented”. Putin, said Scarborough, was “also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?”
Putin “invades countries” … Well, now there even I would have been at a loss as to how to respond. Try as I might I don’t think I could have thought of any countries the United States has ever invaded.
To his credit, Trump responded: “I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is.”
As to Putin killing political opponents, this too would normally go unchallenged in the American mainstream media. But earlier this year in this report I listed seven highly questionable deaths of opponents of the Ukraine government, a regime put in power by the United States, which is used as a club against Putin. This of course was non-news in the American media.
So that’s what happens when the know-nothing American media meets up with a know-just-a-bit-more presidential candidate. Ain’t democracy wonderful?
Trump has also been criticized for saying that immediately after the 9-11 attacks, thousands of Middle Easterners were seen celebrating outdoors in New Jersey in sight of the attack location. An absurd remark, for which Trump has been rightfully vilified; but not as absurd as the US mainstream media pretending that it had no idea what Trump could possibly be referring to in his mixed-up manner.
For there were in fact people seen in New Jersey apparently celebrating the planes crashing into the World Trade Center towers. But they were Israelis, which would explain all one needs to know about why the story wasn’t in the headlines and has since been “forgotten” or misremembered. On the day of the 9-11 attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good. … Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).” There’s a lot on the Internet about these Israelis in New Jersey, who were held in police custody for months before being released.
So here too mainstream newspersons do not know enough to enlighten their audience.
Russia, as explained to Russians by Americans
There is a Russian website [inosmi = foreign mass media] that translates propagandistic russophobic articles from the western media into Russian and publishes them so that Russians can see with their own eyes how the Western media lies about them day after day. There have been several articles lately based on polls that show that anti-western sentiments are increasing in Russia, and blaming it on “Putin’s propaganda”.
This is rather odd because who needs propaganda when the Russians can read the Western media themselves and see firsthand all the lies it puts forth about them and the demonizing of Putin. There are several political-debate shows on Russian television where they invite Western journalists or politicians; on one there frequently is a really funny American journalist, Michael Bohm, who keeps regurgitating all the western propaganda, arguing with his Russian counterparts. It’s pretty surreal to watch him display the worst political stereotypes of Americans: arrogant, gullible, and ignorant. He stands there and lectures high ranking Russian politicians, “explaining” to them the “real” Russian foreign policy, and the “real” intentions behind their actions, as opposed to anything they say. The man is shockingly irony-impaired. It is as funny to watch as it is sad and scary.
The above was written with the help of a woman who was raised in the Soviet Union and now lives in Washington. She and I have discussed US foreign policy on many occasions. We are in very close agreement as to its destructiveness and absurdity.
Just as in the first Cold War, one of the basic problems is that Exceptional Americans have great difficulty in believing that Russians mean well. Apropos this, I’d like to recall the following written about George Kennan:
Crossing Poland with the first US diplomatic mission to the Soviet Union in the winter of 1933, a young American diplomat named George Kennan was somewhat astonished to hear the Soviet escort, Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, reminisce about growing up in a village nearby, about the books he had read and his dreams as a small boy of being a librarian.
“We suddenly realized, or at least I did, that these people we were dealing with were human beings like ourselves,” Kennan wrote, “that they had been born somewhere, that they had their childhood ambitions as we had. It seemed for a brief moment we could break through and embrace these people.”
It hasn’t happened yet.
Kennan’s sudden realization brings George Orwell to mind: “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
Holocaust Deniers
It’s easier to deny the existence of God than to deny the existence of certain aspects of the Holocaust. And not as dangerous. In Europe “denying the Holocaust” is illegal in 14 countries.
Ken Meyercord, who lives in Virginia, has long been a researcher of this phenomenon. He writes that the debate over the Holocaust boils down to three principal issues:
How many died?
Was the “Final Solution” really an extermination plan or was it a plan to deport Europe’s Jews?
Were there actually gas chambers?
He’s prepared an 11-page e-pamphlet on the subject, “Did the Holocaust really happen the way we’ve been told?” It can be obtained by emailing [email protected].
It’s a good thing the United States doesn’t have a law against reporting on the American Holocaust. I’d have been put away long ago, for the sum total of US foreign policy can well be described by that infamous word beginning with an “H”; indeed, my first website carried the name “American Holocaust”.
However, in California there is now a proposed ballot initiative which would restrict “Holocaust Denial”. The Holocaust Denial Speech Restrictions Initiative (#15-0073) is an initiated constitutional amendment proposed for the California ballot on November 8, 2016. The measure would prohibit any speech in any state-funded school, museum or educational institution that claims Jewish, Armenian or Ukrainian Holocausts did not exist. It would also prohibit Holocaust denial organizations from distributing information or conducting activities at these state-funded locations.
In case you’re wondering what the Ukrainian Holocaust was, it’s something left over from the Cold War – charges of widespread famine caused by the Soviet Union amongst the people of Ukraine. But I believe that such charges must be approached with some caution, given, amongst other reasons, the documented campaign by the Hearst Press in the United States to squeeze out every drop of anti-communist blood they could from the historical events. You can read about this in a book by Douglas Tottle, “Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth From Hitler to Harvard” (1987), available free online.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed the traces of the sarin gas used in Syria are not linked with the Syrian government’s former stockpile of chemical weapons. The report corroborates the Syrian government’s assertions that the faction responsible for the chemical attack, as well as 11 other instances of chemical weapons use, was the Syrian opposition.
The report also substantiates last month’s claims from Ahmed al-Gaddafi al-Qahsi, cousin of Muammar Gaddafi, who said that the chemical weapons used in the incident had been stolen from Libya and later smuggled into Syria via Turkey by militants.
The announcement follows an investigation carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) at the request of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government. “In one instance, analysis of some blood samples indicates that individuals were at some point exposed to sarin or a sarin-like substance” said Ahmet Uzumcu, the head of the OPCW. He later added that the sarin gas examined bore different characteristics to the one formerly owned by the Syrian government.
When the devastating sarin gas incident left some 1400 civilians dead in East Ghouta in 2013, the United States, European Union and Arab League were quick to accuse Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian military of utilizing its chemical weapons to combat Islamist rebels in the Syrian capital.
Subsequently, the Syrian government agreed with Russia and the US administration to have its stockpile safely demolished in Norway. Less than a month ago, it was announced that the entirety of the chemical stockpile had been safely disposed of. Prior to the 2013 attack, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that the Syrian Army had seized chemical gas equipment from a militant field hospital in the western port city of Latakia. It cited a field commander stating that the nature of the equipment suggested militants had been planning to carry out chemical or biological attacks and blame the government.
Clear evidence shows Washington uses ISIS and other terrorist groups as imperial foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Its so-called war on terror is a complete hoax, the media perpetuating the myth.
Iraqi parliamentarian Awatif Naima accused US forces of “expanding their heliborne operations in Huweija, Beiji and Sharqat…with the goal of assisting the ISIL terrorist group.”
Iraqi forces witnessed airdrops of weapons, munitions, food and other supplies. Instead of combating ISIS, Pentagon commanders directly aid its fighters.
Last fall, Iraqi forces seized large amounts of ISIS-supplied US weapons, munitions and other military hardware, including anti-armor, anti-tank TOW missiles, as well as shoulder-launched, man-portable, surface-to-air missiles (SAMS) defense systems (Manpads) able to down helicopters and low-flying aircraft.
Naima’s outspokenness leaves her vulnerable. She said “an unidentified armed group assaulted me and MP for the coalition of state law Haider Mawla and directed their weapons at us” – taking Haider “to an unknown destination.”
She demanded Iraq’s Interior Ministry investigate to determine who was behind the incident. Does Washington want her and other US critics terrorized and silenced – to facilitate its war OF terror?
Why Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi continues supporting Washington’s plot to destroy his country he’ll have to explain, using, not combating ISIS terrorists, wanting Iraq balkanized into a Kurdish north, Shiite south and Sunni center.
Iraqi popular forces coordinator Jafar al-Jaberi also accused Washington of airdropping weapons to ISIS terrorists in areas they control – as well as recently liberated ones to encourage them to keep fighting.
Earlier, Iraqi forces downed two UK planes carrying weapons for ISIS in Anbar province. Iraqi parliament security and defense committee chief Hakem al-Zameli said he has photographic evidence of both downed planes and their military cargoes.
He explained Baghdad gets virtual daily reports about US-led coalition weapons and munitions airdrops to ISIS terrorists.
According to Anbar Provincial Council head Khalaf Tarmouz, weapons made in America, Europe and Israel are regularly delivered to ISIS fighters.
Caches were discovered. Eyewitnesses provided evidence. Iraqi parliamentarian Jome Divan calls the so-called US-led coalition “an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons.”
Everyone knows it, Haider doing nothing to publicly expose and try stopping it, as well as turning to Russia for support, what many Iraqi parliamentarians urge.
Last fall, US Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford warned Iraqi officials against accepting Russian help, saying they’ll lose so-called US aid – supporting, not combating ISIS.
On Thursday, Dunford arrived back in Baghdad for meetings with Abadi and US ambassador Stuart Jones – vowing more of the same kind of US help doing more harm than good.
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.
The Islamic State (IS) has become a magnet for international brigades, drawing over 30,000 fighters from 5 continents and 86 countries to their war in Iraq and Syria.
While the international brigades are part of a global movement, most of the volunteers come from two-dozen countries, mainly in the Middle East, Maghreb, Western Europe, Russia and Central Asia.
Most Islamist internationalists are paid a salary to fight and engage in police functions within IS-occupied regions.
This essay will identify the principle sources of recruitment of Islamist internationalists and the reasons underlying their commitment. We will also contrast and compare IS internationalists to the earlier international brigades fighting for the Spanish Republic against fascists in the 1930’s; fascist internationalists fighting for the Nazis against the USSR in the 1940’s; and the democratic internationalists in the 1970’s who joined the Sandinista revolution against the Somoza dictatorship.
Comparing IS to Past Internationalists
The IS ‘volunteers’ most closely resemble the Nazi internationalists in the substance and style of their politics. Both fused rabid nationalism and religion in their fight against ‘godless atheism and communism’, as was the case of the Ukrainian volunteers who collaborated with the Nazi armies invading the USSR. IS uses similar slogans in its attacks against secularSyria and Westernized Iraq. Both the Nazi volunteers and IS fighters are financed by established rightwing regimes: in the past by Hitler’s Germany and today by Saudi Arabia, the US and Turkey.
In contrast the international brigades that fought for the Spanish Republic were mostly secular democrats, socialists and communists who received some arms from the USSR and limited financial aid from leftist individuals and organizations in the Western capitalist democracies.
The internationalists who went to Nicaragua to join with the Sandinista struggle against the Somoza dictatorship were mostly Latin Americans, with a sprinkling of Europeans and North Americans. Most of the volunteers were from Central America (El Salvador, Panama and Costa Rica) as well as political refugees who had fled the brutal military takeovers in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. The conflict pitted internationalists who were anti-imperialist, democrats, socialists and supporters of liberation theology against a US-backed oligarchical dictatorship monopolizing the land, wealth and power.
The Sandinistas, like the IS, opposed US dominance but clearly differ in their tactics, allies and strategic goals. The internationalist volunteers in Nicaragua fought for a secular democratic socialist government with close ties to socialist Cuba. IS retains ideological links and economic ties with the theocratic absolutist monarchy of Saudi Arabia and the authoritarian Islamist regime of Recep Erdogan of Turkey.
The IS internationalists engage in generalized terror, mass murder, and destruction of historic and symbolic sites in conquered towns, cities and villages to ensure conformity. Likewise the pro-Nazi internationalists in Ukraine and the Baltic States and elsewhere had imposed a regime of terror, murdering members of trade unions, cooperatives, as well as Jewish and leftist organizations.
A major difference between the Nazi collaborators and Islamist volunteers is found in the areas of action. Most of the Nazi internationalists engaged in terrorist activity overseas against their republican, democratic and communist enemies. In contrast IS volunteers rotate from their home base to Iraq-Syria and return. According to one study up to 39% of the European jihadist internationalists go back to their home countries. Many continue to support and practice Islamist armed struggle. In contrast, the Spanish Republican and Nicaraguan internationalists of the 1930’s and 1970’s returned home to pursue democratic and socialist politics via elections and mass movements, where possible, and by arms where necessary (like in El Salvador).
In summary, whereas the internationalism of the earlier periods in the 20th Century reflected the polarization between left and right, between Hitlerian fascism and varieties of socialism; today left internationalism is in decline and rightwing Islamist internationalism is on the rise.
According to recent studies the number of IS volunteers has doubled between 2014 and 2015. From January – June 2015 over 30,000 overseas volunteers joined IS fighters compared to 12,000 fighters a year earlier (Independent 8/12/15).
The Growth Centers of IS Internationalists
The number of IS volunteers from Western Europe has doubled over the past year, to over 5,000. (In contrast the number from North America remains around 280 jihadists.) The number of IS volunteers from Russia and Central Asia have increased 300% reaching 4,700, of which 2,400 are Russians (mostly Chechens and Dagestanis) and 2,100 are Turks and Kazaks.
The key centers of IS growth are found in the Middle East, where 8,240 fighters joined the terrorist army in Syria and Iraq. Other “hot spots” are the Gulf States, with 2,500 Saudis and more than 6,000 from the Maghreb, mostly Tunisians.
IS internationalists are increasing in direct proportion to the increasing military intervention of US, EU and Russia. The reasons for joining IS vary by country and cannot be subsumed under a single cause, whether it is religion, ethnicity, class, imperialism or economic remuneration.
In many ways IS has become a magnet for global grievance-holders in a deteriorating world. Force and violence coming from the dominant Western countries has provoked a reciprocal response from a great variety of uprooted, deracinated and educated classes. The IS war against the West is, in part a convergence, of Saudi billionaires experiencing vicarious holy wars and underworld semi-literate fighters from Europe’s urban ghettos.
The IS is a multi-national and national army, ruling by fiat, bound by a rigid hierarchical structure and fundamentalist ideology, which is transmitted through the use of sophisticated high-tech social media. Like the Israeli State, IS harnesses billionaires and high-tech innovations to primitive, tribal ethno-religious beliefs of a ‘superior people’. IS draws economic support from various, apparently contradictory, forces. Financial backing from oil sales via Turkey to Israel; billions from the Saudi regime at war with Shia and secular regimes and movements; arms from the US and EU seeking ‘regime change’ in Bashar Al-Assad’s Syrian government.
IS and Washington’s ‘Coalition of 60’
Washington’s claim that it leads a coalition of 60 governments against IS is deeply flawed because it is based on verbal commitments from regimes, which, in practice, are actually working with the IS. Moreover, for many crucial US ‘partners’ the fight against IS is a pretext for other political-military priorities.
A prime example is Turkey, which attacks and bombs the secular Kurds in Syria and Northern Iraq under the pretext of fighting IS. Ankara supplies ‘volunteers’, supplies arms, training, financing and sanctuaries to the IS. Erdogan’s Turkomen proxies in Syria fight against Kurds as well as the government of Bashar Al-Assad.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States provide ‘volunteers’, finances, religious ideology and arms to IS and other extremists groups to fight and defeat the Shia regime in Iraq, the secular government in Syria and the Houthis movement in Yemen – all the while claiming to be a member of the US coalition against IS.
Israel, which claims to oppose IS and Islamist terrorism, provides cross border medical care to IS fighters wounded in southern Syria and bombs the Syrian armed forces as they pursue IS fighters.
Worst of all, most of the IS arms come from the US, either captured from retreating Iraqi armies or received directly from so-called “moderate rebels” who either sell, or join the jihadis and hand over their US arms to IS.
Like the Nazi international brigades, IS internationalists have powerful state backers who wage phony wars in a game of mutual manipulation. The Saudis export their domestic extremists to Syria and Iraq to safeguard the absolutist monarchy. The US and EU allowed IS volunteers to travel to Syria to overthrow the Bashar Al Assad government – and then exploit the returnees’ links to terrorism, to strengthen the domestic police state. Turkey promotes IS to prevent an autonomous Kurdish state in northern Syria and to expand its southern border by annexing a band of Syrian territory.
Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, which were invited by the Damascus government to fight against IS, are seriously engaged in the war against IS. They fear an IS conquest of Syria will result in a launch-pad for terrorists returning to their countries. Chechens and Dagestani fighters among the IS jihadis receive arms, training and financing and are committed to return to Russia to apply the terror they learned in Syria and Iraq.
Turkey’s aggression and attack against Russia – including the shooting down of a Russian jet which had been bombing IS oil convoys heading for Turkey and Ankara’s proxies among the Turkomen – is indicative of its powerful links to IS.
Conclusion
The formal and informal international organization of Islamist extremists, led and inspired by IS, has encouraged tens of thousands of volunteers from dozens of countries in 5 continents. These international brigades are recruited on the basis of various appeals – not merely religious, but with personal, political and monetary appeals. Many go abroad to Syria and Iraq to secure training with the intention of returning to engage in armed attacks in their country of origin. Their strength is not so much in their numbers or commitments but in the powerful support they receive from major powers in the region and the world. If it was not for Turkey, they would not be able to enter Syria nor receive pay or arms because of IS oil sales via the Erdogan connection. The volunteers would not advance in battle if it were not for US arms captured or bought from Iraqi arms depots and those supplied by the US to its Syrian ‘moderate rebels’. Wounded IS volunteers would not return to battle if it were not for Israeli medical care.
Many IS volunteers would not fight under the banner of Wahhabi extremism if the Saudi Arabians did not pay their salaries and buy their arms. In other words, IS “internationalism” is largely state-sponsored, dependent on the interests and strategic needs of global and regional powers.
In contrast the internationalists who fought on the side of the Spanish democratic Republic (1936-39) against fascist Franco and great regional powers (Germany and Italy) were not supported by the US, Great Britain, France etc.
Likewise, the internationalists, who fought with the Nicaraguan Sandinistas against the Somoza dictatorship, fought against the Great Powers – mainly the US – and received marginal support from Cuba and Panama.
The questions of internationalism and the justice of the cause are largely determined by the nature of the class composition, ideology and backers of their struggle.
The internationalism of the current IS led movement is backed by regional and global imperial powers intent on using international volunteers as cannon fodder for their imperial goals, which include destroying independent governments, establishing client regimes, seizing economic resources and expanding territory in order to establish military bases surrounding global and regional rivals, Russia, Iran and China.
Bad ideas never die at the Pentagon — nor do they fade away. No — like no-win wars (Vietnam followed by Afghanistan, and so on), they keep coming back to haunt us.
According to today’s New York Times, the Pentagon is reviving the idea of special medals and awards for drone pilots and cyber-warfare specialists.
This was an idea shot down by former SecDef Chuck Hagel, but bad ideas live a phoenix-like existence at the Pentagon.
Back in July 2012, I wrote the following article for Huffington Post about “the drone medal.” It still stands today. There are plenty of military decorations and awards, already on the books, that “a grateful nation” can give to its drone operators and cyberwar experts. Creating new decorations to celebrate the “chair force” — well, what more can I say?
News that the Pentagon is considering a special “Distinguished Warfare Medal” for drone pilots tells us much about the American war-making moment. Leaving aside issues of bravery or courage of drone operators, let’s first consider the name of the medal, with its stress on “distinguished warfare.”
Traditionally, U.S. military medals by their very names have stressed honor or service, such as our highest award, the Medal of Honor, or the Distinguished Service Cross. Other medals are specifically connected to aerial prowess and feats, such as the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Air Medal. Such medals are well named, linked as they are to skills demonstrated by air crews operating in harm’s way.
What are we to make of a medal named for prowess in “warfare,” especially when drone operators are completely isolated from the battlefield? For that matter, how can war by remote control be recognized and celebrated as a “distinguished” form of “warfare”? Wouldn’t it be more honest (and perhaps even more honorable) to name this new decoration the “Drone Medal,” with all that name implies?
In raising these semantic points, I wish to take nothing away from drone pilots. They train hard, they work long hours, and they’re dedicated professionals. What they don’t need is a new medal created especially for them, and I’m guessing most of them would agree.
The U.S. military already has a bewildering array of awards and decorations on the books. If a drone pilot does something especially noteworthy or meritorious, there already exist commendation, meritorious service, and distinguished service medals that can be awarded to recognize his or her contribution.
Honestly, the last thing our bloated military establishment needs is more medals. But if the Pentagon insists on creating a “Distinguished Warfare Medal,” we really should insist on calling the Department of Defense by its old (and, given recent events, much more accurate) name: the Department of War.
A lot of people were expecting some really big things to happen in 2015, and most of them did not happen.
But what did happen? It is my contention that a global financial crisis began during the second half of 2015, and it threatens to greatly accelerate as we enter 2016.
During the last six months of the year that just ended, financial markets all over the planet crashed, trillions of dollars of global wealth was wiped out, and some of the largest economies in the world plunged into recession. Here in the United States, 2015 was the worst year for stocks since 2008, nearly 70 percent of all investors lost money last year, and it is being projected that the final numbers will show that close to 1,000 hedge funds permanently shut down within the last 12 months. This is what the early stages of a financial crisis look like, and the worst is yet to come.
If we were entering another 2008-style crisis, we would expect to see junk bonds crashing. When financial trouble starts, it usually doesn’t start with the biggest and strongest companies. Instead, it usually starts percolating on the periphery. And right now bonds of firms that are considered to be on the risky side of things are rapidly losing value.
In the chart below, you can see that a high yield bond ETF that I track very closely known as JNK started crashing in the middle of 2008. This crash began to unfold before the horrific crash of stocks in the fall. Investors that saw junk bonds crashing in advance and pulled their money out of stocks in time saved an enormous amount of money.
Now, for the very first time since the last financial crisis, we are seeing junk bonds crash again. In December, there was finally a sustained crash through the psychologically-important 35.00 level, and at this point JNK is sitting a bit below 34.00. This stunning decline is a giant red flag that tells us that stocks will soon follow in the exact same direction…
In 2015, Third Avenue Management shocked Wall Street when they froze withdrawals from a 788 million dollar mutual fund that was highly focused on junk bonds. Investors that couldn’t get their money out began to panic, and other mutual funds now find themselves under siege. If junk bonds continue to crash, this will just be the beginning of the carnage.
One of the big reasons why junk bonds are crashing is because of the crash in the price of oil. Over the past 18 months, the price of oil has plummeted from $108 a barrel to $37 a barrel.
There has only been one other time in all of history when we have ever seen an oil price crash of this magnitude. That was in 2008 – just before the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression…
Why can’t people see the parallels?
Crashes are happening all around us, and yet so many of the “experts” seem completely blind to what is going on.
Unlike 2008, the price of oil is not expected to rapidly rebound any time soon. The following comes from CNN…
Crude prices dropped a whopping 35% last year and are hovering around $37 a barrel. That’s a level not seen since the global financial crisis.
It won’t get better any time soon. Most oil experts believe prices will bounce back in late 2016, but they expect more pain first.
Goldman Sachs forecasts that oil will average about $38 a barrel in February, even lower than for most of 2015.
Meanwhile, the prices of industrial commodities have been crashing as well. For example, the chart below shows that the price of copper started crashing hard just before the great financial crisis of 2008, and the exact same thing is happening once again right before our very eyes…
Things are unfolding just as we would expect they would during the initial stages of a new global financial crisis.
And we have already seen a full blown stock market crash in many of the largest economies around the planet. For instance, just look at what has been happening in Brazil. The Brazilians have the 7th largest economy in the world, and Goldman Sachs says that they have plunged into an “outright depression“. In the chart below, you can see the sharp downturn that took place in August, and Brazilian stocks actually kept falling all the way through the end of 2015…
We see a similar thing when we look at our neighbor to the north. Canada has the 11th largest economy on the entire planet, and I recently wrote a lengthy articleabout the economic difficulties that the Canadians are now facing. 2015 was a very bad year for Canadian stocks as well, and they just kept falling steadily all the way through December…
Of course nobody can forget what happened to China. The Chinese have the second largest economy on the globe, and news about their economic slowdown in making headlines almost every single day now.
Last summer, Chinese stocks crashed about 40 percent, and they did manage to bounce back just a bit since then. But they are still down about 30 percent from the peak of the market…
And there is plenty more that we could talk about. European stocks just had their second worst December ever, and Japanese stocks are down about 500 points in early trading as I write this article.
Here in the United States, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Dow Transports, the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000 all had their worst years since 2008. As I mentionedthe other day, 674 hedge funds shut down during the first nine months of 2015, and it is being projected that the final total for the year will be up around 1000.
But we aren’t hearing much about this financial carnage on the news yet, are we?
Many people that I talk to still think that “nothing is happening”, but don’t you dare say that to Warren Buffett.
How would you feel if you lost 7.8 billion dollars in a single year?
The truth, of course, is that signs of financial chaos are erupting all around us. Corporate profits are plunging, the bond distress ratio just hit the highest level that we have seen since the last financial crisis, and corporate debt defaults have risen to the highest level that we have seen in about seven years.
If you run a business, you may have noticed that fewer people are coming in and it seems like those that do come in have less money to spend. Economic activity is slowing down, and inventories are piling up. In fact, wholesale inventories have now risen to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession…
Do you notice a theme?
So many things that have not happened in six or seven years are now happening again.
History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme, and it astounds me that more people cannot see that 2015/2016 is looking eerily similar to a replay of 2008/2009.
Another number that I watch closely is the velocity of money. When an economy is running well, money tends to circulate efficiently through the system. But when an economy gets into trouble, people get scared and start holding on to their money. As you can see from the chart below, the velocity of money declined during every single recession since 1960. This is precisely what one would expect. And of course during the recession that started in 2008, the velocity of money plunged precipitously. But then a funny thing happened when that recession supposedly “ended”. The velocity of money just kept going down, and now it has fallen to an all-time record low…
A big reason for this is the ongoing decline of the middle class. In 2015, we learned that middle class Americans now make up a minority of the population for the first time ever.
But if you go back to 1971, 61 percent of all Americans lived in middle class households.
Meanwhile, the share of the income pie that the middle class takes home has also continued to shrink.
In 1970, the middle class brought home approximately 62 percent of all income. Today, that number has fallen to just 43 percent.
As the middle class is systematically destroyed, the number of Americans living in poverty just continues to grow. And those that often suffer the most are the children. It may be hard for you to believe, but the number of homeless children in the U.S. has increased by 60 percent over the past six years.
60 percent!
How in the world can anyone dare to claim that “things are getting better”?
Anyone that says that should be ashamed of themselves.
We are in the midst of a long-term economic collapse that is now accelerating once again.
Anyone that tries to tell you that “things are getting better” and that 2016 is going to be a better year than 2015 is simply not being honest with you.
A new global financial crisis erupted during the last six months of 2015, and this new financial crisis is going to intensify throughout the early months of 2016. Financial institutions will begin falling like dominoes, and this will result in a great credit crunch around the world. Businesses will fail, unemployment will skyrocket and millions will suddenly be faced with economic despair.
By the time it is all said and done, this new financial crisis will be even worse than what we experienced back in 2008, and the suffering that we will see around the world will be off the charts.
So does that mean that I am down about this year?
Not at all. In fact, my wife and I are greatly looking forward to 2016. In the midst of all the chaos and darkness, there will be great opportunities to do good and to make a difference.
What a great shaking comes, people go looking for answers. And I think that this will be a year when millions of people start to understand that our politicians and the mainstream media are not telling them the truth.
Yes, great challenges are coming. But now is not a time to dig a hole and try to hide from the world. Instead, this will be a time for those that have prepared in advance to love others, help others and show them the truth.
What about you?
Are you ready to be a light during the dark times that are coming?
Please feel free to join the conversation by posting a comment below…
The majority of mainstream media reporting surrounding the Burns, Oregon, and Wildlife Refuge occupy protest has ranged from overly simplistic, to outright partisan. This story is a microcosm of media at its most divisive.
At its core, the narrative has become reduced to the government versus the militia or the government versus the people depending on one’s vantage point. On average, the mainstream media’s most neutral narrative is as follows:
Father-son duo of the Hammond ranching family started fires, were found guilty, went to jail, and a bunch of ‘militant’ and ‘anti-government’ militia men don’t like what the federal government are doing and used the event to take over a federal building in the Malhuer Wildlife refuge.
Further to the left, the narrative looks more like:
“Armed Anti-government gang takes over federal building – Oregon community in crisis”(exact words from one mainstream media news anchor)
For most of the American media, that’s a good enough explanation. If it fits your political template, then that is all good. Case closed…?
Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum sits watch overnight with media looking on (Image Credit: Capital Blue/AP Photo/Rebecca Boone)
News media have become brand shopping. Do you want quality, fun, style, and value? Are you loyal to the name? Pick your poison. Reporting a story often times becomes the selling of a larger agenda, each agenda point with its own out-of-the-box marketing campaign and the corresponding planning that goes with it.
The entire development, for major news networks, is much easier to navigate and is less confusing than constantly revising varying degrees of moderation and extremism between allegiance-switching groups in the Middle East.
For a “case closed” perspective of the events from the Department of Justice, District of Oregon, after court rulings on the Hammonds in October of 2015, read here and stop.
The first line of defense is to know that these events rarely, if ever, spawn up overnight and happen in isolation. For a review and thorough sequence of events, detailing how the situation has escalated to what it is now, read the following from 21WIRE, here.
So is the media reporting events or peddling agendas? If they do both, maybe no one can tell the difference.
Things are not that easy and navigating through mainstream news media sludge takes work. Certainly, the White House’s gun-control marketing campaign this week has cast a convenient shadow over events in Oregon, and in order to force-in outside and unrelated issues, the matter at hand must be reduced to a quick and easy account by the media.
One could maintain that Oregon’s Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, the Hammonds, and militias have all become components for a guided tour on how to think. The reason for this is because any number of agendas and unrelated topics have been heaped upon the issue ranging from the Presidential race posturing, race itself, Islam, terrorism, gun control, and a host of distractive latch-on issues.
Simplify Matters
The contrasting sides are often set-up, or at least alluded to, immediately. This is what public relations operatives and political consultants refer to as “framing”. There are plenty of them working in media now, so don’t be surprised to see the exact same tactic deployed in politics as is commonplace in today’s ‘media’ industry.
In today’s media barrage, the title alone might suffice. A quick internet search of various article titles on the subject frame everything at a glance:
The narrative is further presented as two sides with contrasting positions. Choose your position, and make your case. Most Americans will have been pre-conditioned to know where they are supposed to stand, and will quickly align accordingly. The framing here is usually a binary dialectic, or two sides only, with no grey area or middle ground. A or B, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, pro-government or anti-government, Jedi or Sith? We all know the drill. Here they are mainstream media style:
The Hammonds: Victims of over-reach by a federal government, or rogue ranchers who are above the law with a fondness for starting fires?
The Bundy’s and outside militias: Lending a hand to fellow ranchers who are too over-matched to fight for themselves, or unwanted instigators on a personal anti-government crusade?
The Bureau of Land Management: Caretakers and stewards of land and resources, or the very embodiment of big government imposing its will through a vantage point of official power and authority?
Over-simplified, binary arguments almost never present real events. In reality, there are two or more sides to a story or event. This is what most media outlets do not want you to understand, and this is where the “art of the delivery” comes in, by steering the audience to the “right” choice.
When reporting on the events in question in Oregon, the mainstream media imply, or outright allege, that protesters and the militia members who converged on the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge intend to draw first contact and start a shootout (as seen later in a CNN clip below). The analysis about a trigger-happy militia is pondered endlessly by mainstream news personalities, despite repeated statements to the contrary by organizers of the militias in question. This is followed by an endless string of pundits and experts expressing their righteous indignation that ‘the federal government can’t let these militants get away with this!’, and so on.
Activists or Terrorists?
Part of the process of “owning” the narrative and shaping public opinion is to define the problem and the people involved with quick and easily identifiable labels. Among other things, this allows the media to avoid doing any real investigation into the core issues, and simply surf the partisan waves.
In Burns, Oregon, this never happened. Instead the media have labeled the Hammonds as “arsonists” and the Bundys as “terrorists”.
The mainstream media have worked diligently to characterize the protest’s leader, Ammon Bundy (photo, left), son of now iconic Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, as an armed insurgent and a domestic terrorist. This is likely do to the fact that ‘journalists’ are unfamiliar with the fact that Ammon Bundy has stepped into a political role as a public and state lands advocate since 2014 – bringing attention to the thousands of ranchers and farmers in the southwestern states facing federal vs state land management issues, and has spoken publicly many times since the Bundy stand-off in 2014. Viewed through this prism, the Hammond protest and occupation of the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge is quite obviously a political event. But that’s not how the media are treating this.
Today saw one of the lowest points in partisan media. In one of the worst displays of hatchet-journalism by the mainstream media, the Oregon LIVE, CNN and others, have begun digging through all the personal records and finances of the Bundy sons and other protesters, including their businesses loans, personal property records and even traffic violations – in a clear effort to try and slander them in public for matters not related at all to the public lands issue. If only the Oregon LIVE and CNN would apply that same level of effort to investigating the Hammond case, or for the thousands of other farmers who have been forcibly bankrupted and put out of businessover the last two decades.
What “guilt-by-association” words better fit today’s on edge atmospherics than “terrorists and terrorism”? These are precisely the terms which media began saturating the internet with moments after this event hit the headlines. Various left-wing hashtag campaigns like #YallQaedaand #VanillaISIS were strewn all over Twitter and have been trending ever since. This has provided a soft cushion on which larger media ‘journalists’ and organizations can comfortably bounce around pejorative terms without receiving too much criticism. Here’s one choice example:
Amazingly, even long-established news organizations, such as the Washington Post, havepublished articles which question why the militia are not called ‘terrorists’, while Fox Radioponders whether or not they are ‘patriots’ or ‘terrorists’.
The drive for the pejorative label is in full effect. This comes as no surprise, as the mainstream media have been swimming in confusion the last few years, with ever-fluctuating moderation levels of jihadists based upon what group is being backed by the West or its allies at any given moment. However, calling an American citizen or group ‘terrorist’ immediately defines where you stand with regards to protesters or members of the militia.
CNN gets right after it, throws down the gauntlet, and calls the militias in question terrorists without hesitation. The video below is a typical example of agenda driven “news reporting” that brings in unrelated issues of race, the Muslim religion, and loosely slapping a terrorist label over what might best be described as breaking and entering. Through their presentation, the event itself slightly matters and the story becomes everything but the event. Instead of an analysis into how the situation evolved, time is spent on painting a good versus bad narrative, which is done simply by applying the terrorist label to the militias. Watch:
.
As seen toward the end of the clip, the true issue and fear for the establishment, as voiced through CNN’s television stars, is that people might see results from citizen movements with regards to a reverse order – of people controlling their government. If such an idea were to ever catch on, the people might actually believe that they own the country and public lands, and that would be intolerable. Proponents of a strong central government might fear that those whoadminister might return towards a “public service” model, as opposed to a federal service model.
In reality, the happy mediums between demands, law, authority, and obedience are more calculus, than single digit addition. In other words, it’s complicated, and no one hates complications more than media and partisan politicians. Through polarizing the issue, drawing sides, and picking a righteous winner, CNN sides with its apparent partner in Washington and presents the story in such a manner. You can even hear the sadness in the voices as they discuss the possibility that the government might “wait out” the militia instead of coming in with aggressive force and establishing ‘who is boss.’ It might behoove any good journalist or pundit to pause and ask: are the various militias in question really terrorists, and do their acts constitute terrorism?
Here is the definition of “domestic terrorism” and the “federal crime of terrorism” as delineated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and…
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. Sec 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:
• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and…
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including Sec 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and Sec 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
Granted, America seems to be expanding this definition every year, as evidenced by the above inclusion of “retaliate against government conduct” on the list. This seems to indicate that any protest can be characterized as ‘terrorism’ should the government chose to press there. Those calling these militias ‘terrorists’, seem to be taking only “(ii)” from the above definition of Domestic Terrorism and are “running with it.”
Again, the FBI states in their own words above that the three characteristics are required. Nowhere does the FBI say, one of the above is terrorism, or some of the above is terrorism. As champions of the law and enforcing it, and assuming care was taken to review the definitions by many, one would believe that they meant what they wrote—and wrote what they meant. The militia is a citizen’s right clearly stated in the US Constitution, but perhaps breaking and entering or ‘unlawfully’ occupying is not legal…. but terrorism?
What about committing the “federal crime of terrorism” from 18 U.S.C. (United States Code) Sec 2332b above? Clearly, the militias are there, openly, with guns and stating they will defend themselves if necessary. Or, are they simply there and carrying fire arms within the law (yes, it is legal to carry a gun in the US)? The definition might appear to be in the eye of the beholder, but from the government’s perspective, the definition seems highly elastic.
CNN and the Washington Post are telling you whom to side with through their narrative and ‘terrorist’ labels for the militias in question.
Depending on how one views the world with regards to the issue, along with their ability to process information presented to them, determines what side they are on, or if they are even on a side. Who has the bigger agenda and the bigger stake, the government, or the militias and ranchers? Is it really about Land Management and/or People Management, or are both inter-related?
Let’s start with the land itself. As noted in the Congressional Research Service’s 2014 documentFederal Land Ownership, the United States governs, oversees, owns, or otherwise has authority and jurisdiction over land primarily through the following 5 agencies:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The Forestry Service (FS)
The Fish and Wild Life Service (FWS)
The National Park Service (NPS)
The Department of Defense (DoD)
Here is what Oregon looked like with regard to the above agencies and some of their sub-departments in 1996, now twenty years ago:
The Federal Land Ownership document, cited above, also notes that the overall public land managed by the BLM has dropped nearly 25 million acres from 1990 to 2013. However, this comes mostly from almost 22 million acres within Alaska alone. Within Oregon, the state in question, the BLM alone has gained almost 550,000 acres to manage from the already color-dense map above, and is set to takeover another 2.5 million acres with the their proposed Owyhee Canyonlands ‘National Monument’ – an area larger than Yellowstone National Park – set to be shut-off to the state and placed under BLM control.
Part of the larger Department of the Interior (DOI), the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM)Mission Statement is: “To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” According to the BLM website, they oversee more than 245 million acres and over 700 million mineral and “sub surface” acres, with a multi-billion dollar budget and about 10,000 employees. The BLM also claims to be one of the few federal agencies that generate revenue, based largely on 4.3 billion dollars of onshore oil and gas development and numerous other “land deals” brokered by the BLM.
Hundreds of millions of acres is vast. Most people probably see the need for a diligent and upstanding management of it, to include the natural resources and wildlife found on the land, as well as the resources beneath it. Understanding that a “free for all” of destroying resources combined with a full bore resource grab would be adverse, many would likely contribute to the oversight of it. Being entrusted with such a job could be seen as an honorable undertaking – by citizens… for citizens. But when does stewardship and land management turn into ‘territorial control’ by Washington DC, which invariably leads to an institutional vendetta, or “sending a message”, or becomes a means to define boundaries between authorities and their subjects? Undoubtedly, this is what seems to be happening all over the western states, and with small farms being victims, picked off, one by one by a superior force – the federal government.
So the federal government in Washington DC is treating State public land as its “territory”, when, according to the US Constitution, it is not.
Watch as Oregon Congressman Greg Walden (R) delivers an incredibly detailed and impassioned speech on the Capitol floor yesterday, outlining the scale of this problem in his state:
.
The fact that the mainstream media have not given this issue any serious consideration as journalists speaks to the systemic problem which the public now faces in a post-Fourth Estate America, where mainstream media’s interests are mostly married to those of central government. The public stand to lose a lot in this polarizing environment.
Many Constitutional purists and opponents of federal government “over reach” and abuse of power argue that the government doesn’t really own the land. By both the letter, and spirit of the law, there is a real Constitutional case to be made there. Unfortunately, it all quickly turns into a debate on power, control, and authority between the federal government and the states, further complicated by who happens to be in positions of authority for each.
They point to Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution which authorizes Congress to “exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings,” and they throw out the very premise of government land ownership outside of those parameters. The larger issue, beyond the Hammond family in particular, is also centered around jurisdiction — literally. Jurisdiction over land and resources inevitably stem from arrangements involving ownership and control. Who is in charge of what, and to what degree? Whose goals are ultimately being achieved and who is affected are things all citizens would be wise to ask themselves.
Are the Hammonds being crushed from above in accordance to what they did and were found guilty of and does the punishment fit?
The Oregonian reports:
There’s nobody in history who has gone to federal prison for burning a few acres of public property,” said Melodi Molt, a Harney County rancher and former president of Oregon CattleWomen. “It’s not right.” The Oregon Farm Bureau said the second prison term is “gross government overreach and the public should be outraged.” And then there is what some locals see as a government land grab.
The Hammonds in late 2014 agreed to pay the federal government $400,000 to settle a lawsuit seeking to force them to pay more than a $1 million in costs for fighting fires they set. The Hammonds paid $200,000 right away and paid the rest Thursday. The settlement also required the Hammonds to give the land bureau first chance at buying a particular ranch parcel adjacent to publicland if they intended to sell. For some, this was evidence that the government all along was after the Hammond ground to add to its Steens Mountain holdings.
The Oregonian continues, stating that the Hammonds originally served jail time starting in 2012 under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The father, Dwight Hammond, aged 73, was sentenced to three months and the son, Steve, to one year. A possible 5 year sentence, according to U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan at the Hammonds’ original 2012 sentencing, would be unconstitutional and “a sentence which would shock the conscience.” After serving their time, both father and son were dragged back in front of a federal bench and re-sentenced to a full 5 year term – in what many believe was just the latest chapter in a federal vendetta against the family, waged in part by then U.S Attorney for the State of Oregon, Amanda Marshall.
A New Yorkerarticleunabashedly calls the AEDPA law, “… one of the worst statutes ever passed by Congress [headed by Bob Dole] and signed into law by a President [President Clinton]. The heart of the law is a provision saying that, even when a state court misapplies the Constitution, a defendant cannot necessarily have his day in federal court.”
So is this the new image of a terrorist breeding ground and rallying point?
To be fair, not everyone is happy about the outsiders. Caught in the midst of it all are citizens such as a local resident, Candy Tiller, quoted by Oregon Public Broadcasting, saying, “I’m worried that there’s a trigger-happy idiot out there… And maybe a law enforcement officer or somebody else makes a move that makes him think they’re pulling a gun and he’s going to shoot… I don’t want that. I don’t want that for anybody… This is crazy. This does not fit. These people need to go away.”
Locals will always feel the tension best, and no scenario would play to the establishment and mainstream media narrative better than an Waco-style gunfight and siege, also playing out on LIVE television. Based on the current situation report, the federal government would be the one escalating tension by pouring hundreds of assets into the small town and turning the area into a quasi-military occupation, as Washington clearly did with Bundy Ranch in 2014.
Whether it’s a Greenpeace protest, Occupy Wall Street, or Bundy Ranch, federal agencies have tried and tested methods besides overt force, in order to weaken and ultimately bring down any protest. The first method is disinformation – a “protest leak” about a ‘split’ within the group, or ‘rumors’ about a member of the group wanting to leave. This type of manuever might look something like this:
The other method of disinformation is a “government leak” designed to scare off other activists from coming to the event, but also to jar those inside of the protest and their families and as loved ones look on. Whether it is true or not is beside the point. This type of sensational storyline is designed make its way on to the internet and quickly go viral, and might look something like this:
“FBI preparing for Waco-style raid in Oregon…”
Similarly, during the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014, a slightly more outlandish story was planted in the alternative media about Eric Holder authorizing a drone strike on Bundy Ranch. Not surprisingly, the story was complete fiction. As wildly unbelievable as that story was, it worked incredibly well for the federal government because the bulk of the militia camped out at the ranch, a group known as Oathkeepers, immediately became frightened, packed up and left.
Another example could be found in a Tweet released at the height of the Bundy Ranch stand-off in 2014, claiming that the government had shut down cell phone towers in a “communications black-out” (presumably ‘preparing to attack’). Though this never actually happened, one could easily view this as an attempt to scare away members of the public from going to the ranch to support the cause:
Bundy family reports cell towers near ranch have been shut down, preventing communication & video uploads. #BundyRanch
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 11, 2014
If the disinformation fails, the next level of federal subterfuge is usually to embed or ‘plant’ a federal informant(s) or agent provocateur (s) inside of the protest. Typically, this is done very early on in the process, but also becomes much easier once more people pour into the area. With a “patriots unite” call to stand with the militias, as seen in the below video, it’s almost impossible for organizers to ever know who could be on-site, or what off-centered ‘rebel’ or individual would simply “just show up”, either to make a name for themselves through media coverage, or even worse – by starting some serious trouble between activists or with law enforcement.
In terms of discrediting the protest in the court of public opinion, the Hammond Protest could field no one better than tabloid media mascot, like Jon Ritzheimer of Anti-Islam protesting fame. Ritzheimer quickly become the mainstream media’s target of ridicule and used to discredit any of the other protesters. In addition to his armed march on American mosques, Ritzheimer also tried to grab headlines for traveling to Michigan to kidnap, or make a “citizens arrest” as Ritzheimer called it, of the elderly Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) – because she supported the internationalIran Nuclear Deal.
.
What’s more amazing is how Ritzheimer could threaten a Senator and also publicly incite a mass armed provocation against a single religious minority group – and not be arrested and at least placed on probation (taken off the street). Maybe he has the same lawyer as the New Black Panthers.
Whether this is by design, or not, the effect is undeniable. This exact scenario has already played out in Burns, Oregon with the mainstream media casting Ritzheimer in the role of flag-waving xenophobe and ‘militia nut-job’, with the added knock-on effect of painting “constitutionalists” as mentally unstable, ‘militant extremists.’
Professional media villain Jon Ritzheimer recorded his own ‘martyrdom video’ before heading up to the protest.
As the event unfolds many scenarios could happen. The worst outcome of events in Oregon would be that the Hammond family issue loses the spotlight, and the public lands issue becomes obscured by a media desperate for a anti-gun narrative and obsessed with the ridiculous antic of synthetic YouTube actors attached to event.
Only the craziest of megalomaniac government officials, robotic plants, or glory-seeking wackos would really want this to escalate, led by a depraved sensationalized media, and with a public glued to the screen “Farenheit 451 style” with a bag of Cheetos.
Does Doctors Without Borders Deserve an Independent Probe?
The October 3 airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, carried out by the US, left 42 civilians dead and thousands of Afghans without access to emergency medical care.
The United States — often first in line to call for independent investigations of the actions of others — is blocking efforts to mount an international inquiry into the devastating raid.
Debris litters the floor in one of the corridors of MSF’s Kunduz Trauma center. Photo credit: Victor J. Blue / MSF
Exhibit A of the US double-standard on accountability: the Obama administration’s reaction to the July 2014 downing of a Malaysian airliner over territory controlled by “Russian-backed separatists” in eastern Ukraine.
Referring to that tragedy, President Obama said, “[A]mid our prayers and our outrage, the United States continues to do everything in our power to help bring home their loved ones, support the international investigation, and make sure justice is done.” He also condemned the “separatists” for interfering with the crash investigation and tampering with evidence.
But that was when the Russians and their allies were the suspects. In the wake of the Afghan hospital bombing, the US has insisted it has the ability to investigate itself impartially, a claim Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF) strongly rejects.
“Very Precisely Hit”
Supporting the MSF position is the fact that the official US story has changed numerous times. US forces first claimed the airstrike was carried out “against individuals threatening the force,” and that the nearby hospital was only collateral damage.
In response, MSF said “the main hospital building, where medical personnel were caring for patients, was repeatedly and very precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched,” suggesting the strikes were not a mistake.
Local Afghan forces attempted to justify the attack on grounds that Taliban fighters shot at US and Afghan forces from the hospital.
The MSF categorically denies this, saying that the Afghan statement “amounts to an admission of a war crime.” Hospitals are protected under laws of war.
The differing accounts of what happened that day only underscore the need for an independent, impartial body to conduct an investigation.
“Violations of the Rules of War?”
The US military completed its internal investigation in November. In contrast to earlier US statements, the latest report does not claim the bombing of the hospital was collateral damage inflicted while protecting US troops under fire from the Taliban. Instead, the report says that US forces intended to strike a nearby building where they believed insurgents were taking shelter, but that “human error, compounded by systems and procedural failures“ resulted in US forces striking the MSF compound instead. The communications systems malfunctioned, and personnel requesting and executing the strike “did not undertake the appropriate measures to verify that the facility was a legitimate military target,” said General John Campbell.
But MSF is not satisfied. Christopher Stokes, the organization’s General Director, said in a written statement dated November 25, “the US version of events presented today leaves MSF with more questions than answers. The frightening catalogue of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of US forces and violations of the rules of war.”
MSF has called on the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to launch an independent investigation. The IHFFC was established under the Geneva Conventions but has never been used since it was officially constituted in 1991. According to the group’s website, “The IHFFC stands ready to undertake an investigation but can only do so based on the consent of the concerned… States.”
However, the United States and Afghanistan are unlikely to give their consent, as they would prefer their own investigation to be accepted as definitive.
Doctors WIthout Borders condemns this stance in the strongest possible language.“We cannot rely solely on the parties involved in the conflict to carry out an independent and impartial examination of an attack in which they are implicated,” said MSF-USA Executive Director Jason Cone. “Perpetrators cannot also be judges.”
In the New American Century, the concept of ‘human rights’ has become a relative concept.
The recent Saudi execution of the Shi’ite cleric and political activist Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr served as a reminder that the political establishment in Washington DC, and its media counterparts, may wax lyrical about ‘human rights,’ but at the end of the day its guiding principle is Vladimir Lenin’s who, whomdictum.
PROVOCATION: Saudi’s planned execution of Shi’ite cleric has become the new lightning rod for conflict in the region.
Sheikh al-Nimr was accused by the Saudi government of inciting terrorism and encouraging sedition. The cleric was a firebrand for sure and he made no qualms about expressing his loathingof the Saudi-Wahhabi regime that has oppressed the Shi’ites of the Arabian peninsula for over a century, his actual “crimes” wasn’t waging a violent campaign against the government, but daring to call for an end to the vicious institutional discrimination of Shi’ites and demanding they be treated as equal to their Sunni fellow citizens.
It should be noted that the Saudis encouraged violence and terrorism among Sunnis in Libya and Syria during the advent of the so-called Arab Spring, but ruthlessly suppressed al-Nimr and other Saudi Shi’ites seeking political and social reforms at the same time. The could be said for the Saudi-backed quelling of Shi’ite protests in nearby Bahrain.
That the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia hated and feared Sheikh al-Nimr and would not stand for his challenging their power comes as no surprise, the Saudi government is no friend of its resident dissidents and a pathological hatred of Shi’ites is firmly engrained in the government – sponsored Wahhabi sect’s theological outlook. So in light of that, the actions of the Saudis is hardly surprising.
What is perhaps, at least superficially, more surprising is the response of American politicians…
Former Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby briefs reporters (Image Source: WikiCommons)
‘Optics’ Not Ethics
At the U.S. State Department, John Kirby offered up only that the White House had some vague “concern” about human rights, and refused to make a more decisive condemnation, despite the fact the State Department routinely denounces other governments for far less.
Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said the execution raises “serious questions,” though she never explained what these questions were, nor did she make a direct condemnation. One might wonder if Hillary’s muted response would have anything to do with the many millions of dollars in donations made to her globalist war chest, the Clinton Foundation by the Saudis.
Among the neoconservative pundit class, as outlined by the journalist Jim Lobe, the execution of al-Nimr was dismissed as a ‘minor’ item, or worse, outright defended, on the (false) pretext that the cleric was a ‘Iranian agent of influence’ (and therefore deserving of his fate). Lobe offers this quote from FOX News pundit and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer defending the Saudis, and taking a swipe at Obama for being insufficiently bellicose with Iran:
“Just last week the U.S. responded to the firing of the missiles, illegal firing of the nuclear-capable missiles by Iran by threatening trivial sanctions and then actually canceling, or postponing the sanctions, when the Iran protested and said they would increase their production of missiles. In other words, the U.S. would not even respond to an open provocation on the missile issue, and what they read is complete abandonment. They are now on their own, and then they’re not going to have to face the Iranians and their allies on their own. And if that means they have to execute a Shiite who is an insurrectionist in their country, he’s got to be executed.”
Krauthammer would have us believe that history started five minutes ago, and that someone like al-Nimr only exists because of the sinister machinations of Tehran’s ayatollahs, abetted by Obama’s “strategy of retreat.” This being the narrative promoted by the neocons and their fellow travelers in the in the American media, including an increasing number of what amount to shills on the Saudi payroll.
Another example of this anti-Iranian narrative being standardized is to be found in an interview Congressman Ed Royce (R), chair of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, gave to CNN in which he dissembled about the al-Nimr execution, instead blaming Iran and going as far to state that Saudis aggressive anti-Shi’ite policies is justified because of the supposed presence of the Iranian military in neighboring Yemen, an even more extreme and dishonest variation of the since debunked conspiracy theory that Iran is the secret hand behind the Houthi militia that ousted the Yemeni president previously installed by the Americans and the Saudis. In a most ridiculous case, Royce accuses Iran of trying to overthrow Middle Eastern regimes, which is rich coming from a man who has ardently supported the American “regime change” wars in Iraq and Libya.
Despite all the lofty rhetoric from Washington about human rights, democracy, and freedom for minorities, the response to the beheading of Sheikh al-Nimr are a reminder these things are merely rhetorical devices to undermine foreign governments that are insufficiently compliant toward Washington – as human rights concerns are dismissed for those regimes that are willing to do Washington’s bidding, and who have cash to throw around to politicians, think tanks and media outlets.
Make no mistake: the execution of Sheikh al-Nimr didn’t ‘just happen’ as per usual – it was planned, as were the reactions that we are currently witnessing on our TV screens. This event was designed to trigger a chain reaction of power-politics and forced-sectarian strife in the region – just as the assassination of assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand did in 1914.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues to prosecute one of the most brutal wars ever seen in Yemen (and hardly a tear from president Obama).
For Washington, all that matters now is who, and whom.
US and international media have been abuzz in recent days with the ongoing armed occupation at the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. The social media space has been, quite predictably, polarized with many on the far right lionizing the armed occupiers as “patriots” and “heroes” defending a just cause in the name of “liberty.”
Naturally many liberals and assorted leftists have condemned the occupation, pointing out both the relevant legal and historical issues at play here, including the vicious tradition of white militias in the US, the blatant disregard of environmental regulations, and much more that is well beyond the scope of this article.
But what has been missed by seemingly every pundit, left and right, who has chimed in on the Oregon occupation is the unmistakable stench of provocation. Simply put, something is off about this whole story, and it struck me from the first moment I read about what was happening, who was involved, and who wasn’t involved. Specifically, there are indications that this entire fiasco has been manufactured by either government agencies themselves or some other private forces for any number of reasons.
If this sounds like “conspiracy theory” to you, it should; I am here theorizing about a potential conspiracy[studio audience gasps]. While the media, academia, and other assorted handmaidens of the ruling class have conditioned many on the Left to recoil in horror at the mere mention of the word, the fact remains that conspiracies are everywhere, that the government and corporations are involved in them, and that refusing to question received narratives and facts for fear of being tarred and feathered as a “conspiracy nut” is precisely the sort of mindless twaddle that has become all too pervasive on the Left.
And so, armed with my bullshit detector, and with full knowledge that many potential angry emailers have already stopped reading, I now dive into the morass that is the #OregonOccupation.
Questions about the Key Players
While much can be said about Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher (and well known racist) Cliven Bundy, the real suspicion lies with three of the “activists” widely regarded as instrumental in organizing the occupation. By examining what is known and unknown about these three shady characters, a much different picture begins to emerge, one in which a publicity stunt-cum-armed occupation is less an act of protest, and more an act of provocation.
First up for scrutiny is Ryan Payne, an Army veteran and one of the spokespeople for the occupiers both in Oregon, and during the 2014 standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Speaking of the ongoing Oregon occupation, Payne told the New York Times, “We will be here for as long as it takes…People have talked about returning land to the people for a long time. Finally, someone is making an effort in that direction.” Leaving aside the hilariously wrongheaded idea that public lands can be seized and given over to private landowners, and that that would somehow qualify as “returning land to the people,” it is Payne himself who deserves further investigation.
Payne, who served in the US Army in Iraq from 2003-2005, is described in his Army Commendation Medalcertificate as having performed “exceptionally meritorious service as a long range surveillance senior scout observer and assistance team leader” while being part of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion. It strikes me as curious, if not completely suspicious, that a young white veteran of military intelligence happens to have been part of both the Bundy Ranch standoff and the ongoing occupation in Oregon. But maybe I’m just paranoid, right? Maybe he’s just some right wing young veteran with an overzealous desire to effect political change. Well, maybe. But when you consider that this nobody from Nowhere, Montana has become one of the main participants of these two actions in Nevada and Oregon, and that he’s been at the center of nearly every aspect of both incidents, it should certainly raise some questions.
But don’t take it from me. Gary Hunt, a right wing, pro-militia blogger writing at Canada Free Press, had this to say about Payne, “[Payne provided] ‘meritorious service’ at Bunkerville[the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014], holding the chaotic mass of militia and molding them into a cohesive force.” That certainly does not sound like some Johnny-come-lately just trying to be part of some cool anti-government action. Instead, that sounds like an intelligence operator, someone coordinating actions and groups and maintaining operational security, among other responsibilities. In short, Payne appears from all indications to be a focal point of both episodes.
However, “molding the militia into a cohesive force” was not Payne’s only contribution to the 2014 standoff. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center report entitled War in the West:
After watching the [viral Cliven Bundy] video from his home in Anaconda, Montana, 650 miles away, Ryan Payne, 30, an electrician and former soldier who had deployed twice to the Iraq war, became enraged […] Payne left that day with another member of his militia, Jim Lardy, and drove through the night, a few sleeping bags in tow, burning up cell phones hoping to bring every militia member they could. On April 9 he sent out an urgent call for the militias to mobilize. ‘At this time we have approximately 150 responding, but that number is growing by the hour,’…Militia snipers lined the hilltops and overpasses with scopes trained on federal agents. What happened was not unplanned. As Payne later told the SPLC, he had ordered certain gunmen [sic] ‘to put in counter sniper positions’ and others to hang behind at the rance [sic]. ‘[M]e and Mel Bundy put together the plan for the cohesion between the the Bundys and the militia…. Sending half of the guys up to support the protestors…and keep overwatch and make sure that if the BLM wanted to get froggy, that it wouldn’t be good for them.’
According to Payne’s own words, and those of his supporters, there is certainly ample reason to suspect that this 30 year old veteran was more than simply a participant in this saga, but that he was one of the principal organizers of nearly every aspect of the event, from recruitment and media penetration to operational control. Payne’s message to his fellow right wing militia brothers certainly has the air of provocation as he suggests that they be prepared to lay down their lives in armed struggle against the federal government. “All men are mortal, most pass simply because it is their time, a few however are blessed with the opportunity to choose their time in performance of duty,” Payne explained in a thinly veiled threat of potentially lethal violence.
As I adjust my tinfoil hat, allow me to suggest that such words as those uttered by Payne reek of the tactics ofagents provocateurs whose objective it is to incite violence in order to either discredit a particular targeted group or to effect a confrontation designed to escalate a given conflict. While impossible to say definitively, it seems just based on his words and deeds, that Payne has become what amounts to a coordinator of the militia movement. Whether he is still working for military intelligence, some other intelligence or law enforcement agency, or the FBI, it seems clear that Payne deserves far more scrutiny than the controlled corporate media has given him.
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move. He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
So not only is Payne one of the main coordinators and organizers of the occupation, he seems to also be doing double duty, acting as a liaison while obviously gathering intelligence about the participants, the non-participants, critical voices in the community, etc. Again, one could say he’s just a zealous right winger trying to help a cause. But when you combine the various threads of evidence about his background and his activities, my suspicions are certainly raised. It seems I’m not alone, as many commenters on right wing blogs use phrases like “plant” and “Fed shill” and “agent” when describing Payne. According to sources involved in the Bundy Ranch standoff, some were even accusing Payne of precisely that from the very beginning.
Then there is the man known as Blaine Cooper (given name Stanley Hicks) who poses on his Facebook page in military fatigues with sniper rifles and a veritable potpourri of other weapons claiming to be a “patriot” defending the rights of citizens. Cooper aka Hicks enlisted in the Marines in the Delayed Entry Program which allows prospective soldiers a year before they have to report to boot camp. However, according to US Marine Corps records, Cooper/Hicks never showed up. This failure to honor his signed commitment, coupled with more than a dozen arrests and convictions under the name Stanley Hicks, might account for why he changed his name to Cooper and reinvented himself as a self-styled militia leader.
Cooper/Hicks is well known on YouTube within right wing militia circles, with tens of thousands of views of his various
. He has also falsely presented himself as a member of the Oath Keepers, another militia organization that has featured prominently in various exploits, including their much maligned visible presence in Ferguson, Missouri at the height of the protests over the murder of Mike Brown. Here is what Stewart Rhodes, a founder and President of the Oath Keepers had to say about Cooper/Hicks
(see also 15:01 OathKeepersOK 01 Jan 2016 Views: 9 k
Actually, he [Cooper/Hicks] has never been a member of Oath Keepers. Being a felon, he is automatically disqualified and inelligible [sic] for membership in our org, nor has he ever tried to join. He has paraded around in an Oath Keepers T shirt, and misrepresented himself as being onr [sic] of us, and has used our logo without our permission in some of his idiotic crap he has done. He is a loose cannon retard and blow-hard…But he is not an Oath Keeper.
Interestingly, the Oath Keepers, along with a number of other militia organizations, have been quick to distance themselves from the Burns, Oregon occupation, and from the likes of Payne and Cooper. According to astatement on the Oath Keepers website, the organization disavows the actions of Payne, Cooper & Co., making clear that “In the Hammond case, there is no clear and present danger of the family being mass murdered, there is no stand off [sic], and the family has no intent of starting one … If you want to go protest, by all means do so … but do not allow yourselves to be roped into an armed stand off [sic] the Hammonds do not want.”
Similarly, the Oregon chapter of the Three Percenters, another right wing militia organization, released astatement on their Facebook page in which they explained that:
Unbeknownst to the Idaho 3%, Oregon 3%, it’s [sic] leaders, associations, rally participants, or the citizens of Harney County; these actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeoverafter the rally [emphasis added]. The 3% of Idaho, 3% of Oregon, The Oregon Constitutional Guard, and PPN organizations in no way condone nor support these actions. They do not mirror our vision, mission statement, or views in regards to upholding the Constitution, The Rule of Law, or Due Process.
(Also, check out this from Cooper and read the comments which, aside from the standard anti-semitic nonsense, are littered with commenters accusing Cooper of being a liar, a plant, a provocateur, an agent.)
Such strongly worded disavowals and condemnations indicate that Payne, Cooper, and their cohort are manufacturing this incident entirely. Whether or not the disagreement between the militias and the occupiers is purely a matter of tactics, or something more deeply rooted, including suspicions about the motives and connections of Payne and Cooper, this is a question for those involved in these groups. At the very least however, it seems that segments of the right wing militia movement are not exactly embracing these actions.
Finally we come to the loathsome buffoon Jon Ritzhemier. If that name rings a bell, it should; Ritzheimer was the organizer and sponsor of the “Draw Muhammad” contest in Phoenix, Arizona which made national headlines. One important aspect of the protest outside a Phoenix area mosque which coincided with the contest was the fact that Ritzheimer was deliberately provoking both the Muslim community and the hardcore right wingers who participated in the protest. Ritzheimer described the rally as being “about pushing out the truth about Islam.” However, according to the event’s Facebook page (since deleted but quoted by theWashington Times), “This will be a PEACEFUL protest in front of the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix AZ… Everyone is encouraged to bring American flags and any message that you would like to send to the known acquaintances of the 2 gunmen…People are also encouraged to utilize their second amendment right at this event just in case our first amendment right comes under the much anticipated attack.”
While Ritzheimer talked up his event as a “peaceful protest,” it’s quite clear that there was a not so subtle implied threat of violence, just as there was at Bunkerville, just as there is in Burns, Oregon today. The salient point is not that these are gun-toting lunatics, but rather that they are being lured into a potentially dangerous and violent confrontation by an individual whose intentions are suspect to say the least.
A further indication that Ritzheimer’s objective is provocation rather than protest is his outlandishly stupid, and incredibly irresponsible, “roadtrip” to New York where he planned to confront the Muslims of America organization which had referred to him as the “American Taliban.” What is particularly interesting is that Ritzheimer was in communication with the FBI throughout the trip until he allegedly cut off communication. How does an allegedly anti-government right wing activist spend hours talking on the phone with Federal agents? Perhaps, as some are likely to say, I’m reading too much into this. Well, the right wing militia types who have been suggesting that Ritzheimer is a provocateur might also be “reading too much into this.”
Cui Bono?
The question of motive is obviously front and center when considering the potential that the entire Oregon Occupation is being staged. Why would the handlers of these potential agents provocateurs want to do this? Here are some, but certainly not all, of the possible motives:
Create a situation that is likely to escalate in order to then use it to justify everything from increasingly draconian anti-terror legislation (especially “domestic” terrorism) to potential dragnet policing of the radical fringes on both left and right. Nothing would justify a crackdown on radical environmentalists, armed self-defense organizations (be they Oath Keepers or the Huey P. Newton Gun Club), revolutionary communists and anarchists, and other such groups better than a nice, messy, dramatic event in Oregon.
Use this event, and others like it, as a means of discrediting, dividing, and factionalizing not merely the right wing organizations, but all groups who see corporations and the State as the enemy. As communist writer and journalist Harriet Parsons correctly wrote in 1980:
The state’s tactics fall into two broad categories, spying and provocation… The government boasts that over 87% of the information on revolutionaries collected by the state comes from informants, members of organizations solicited by the police or people placed within a group to gather information. Once in the organization, the informants worm their way into key positions in order to have access to critical information about the leadership and tactical plans… In some cases, agents within will try to push the line of the organization to an incorrect position on the right or left so as to discredit the Party’s work among the masses… Excellent examples of this technique can be seen in the government’s disruption of the mass organizations engaged in the anti-war movement in the 1960s… FBI agents often offered to supply dynamite and weapons to the radicals to encourage terrorist action which would raise public sentiment against them and make them vulnerable to legal prosecution.
Manufacture some sort of heroism or martyrdom on the part of the occupiers in order to promote right wing extremist ideology which will appeal to an increasing segment of the population, particularly in light of recent developments ranging from the ascendance of Trumpism to the ongoing economic breakdown of the middle class. In doing so, the ruling class then ‘lances the boil’ of activism and revolutionary energies, directing them to fascistic, nationalistic dead ends rather than to a genuine mass movement centered on the rights of working people and the poor. In other words, social engineering.
Naturally there are likely many other possible motives for manufacturing the sort of fiasco that is unfolding in Burns, Oregon. Whatever the true motives, one thing is clear: what’s happening in Oregon is dangerous, unproductive, and dare I say, counter-revolutionary.
I should note that, as if it weren’t already plainly obvious, I’m not a supporter of right wing militia groups in the US, though I do share some of their concerns in regards to the police state and the corporate entity called the US Government. Nor am I a fan of that nebulous thing called the “Patriot Movement,” riddled as it is with anarcho-capitalist claptrap, radical libertarian pseudo-politics, racism, xenophobia, and outright fascism.
However, that aside, it is important to separate what’s real from what’s manufactured. There are real people with real grievances and a genuine desire to roll back the fascist police state in this movement. It is precisely such activists who are the REAL target of the Oregon occupation, and along with them, so too are any radical activists who want to use direct action to effect change.
While many on the left and right are mesmerized by Bernie and Trump and the non-revolutionary “revolutions” they represent, the ruling class knows perfectly well that true revolution will come from below. Oregon might just be yet another effort to cut the legs out from under it.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly attributed a quotation to a journalist. It has has since been removed, and a formal apology issued to the journalist.
Saudi Arabia is a beheading paradise. But this PR nightmare is the least of all problems in an oil crisis. Once again, the heart of the matter is – what else – black gold.
So far, the House of Saud’s whole energy strategy has boiled down to shaving off its oil production no matter what it takes, even issuing bonds to cover its massive deficits.
Now the strategy has been moved one step ahead via a flagrant provocation: the execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr.
The House of Saud believes that by stoking the flames of a Riyadh-Tehran confrontation it may raise the fear factor in the oil supply sphere, leading to higher oil prices (which it needs), while maintaining the Holy Wahhabi Grail of keeping imminent Iranian oil off the market.
From the beginning, Riyadh bet on the possibility of extra energy-related sanctions on Iran in case Tehran forcefully responded to its beheading provocation. Yet Iranians are too sophisticated to fall for such a crude tap.
Persian Gulf traders have confirmed the 2016 Saudi budget is based on an average crude oil price of only $29 per barrel, as first reported by Jadwa Investment in Riyadh.
From the House of Saud’s budget dilemma perspective, this is absolutely unsustainable. The House of Saud is the biggest OPEC oil exporter. Yet their supreme hubris is to deny Iran any leeway in exports, which will be inevitable especially in the second half of 2016. Moreover, the low oil price strategy doesn’t apply solely to Iran: it’s still part of the oil war against Russia.
Somebody though is not doing the math right in Riyadh. The Saudi low oil price strategy has been punishing Russia – the number two global oil producer – badly. The Saudis cannot possibly expect that their beheading provocation will simultaneously scotch an OPEC-Russia deal on cutting production and also lead to higher oil prices, which would mostly benefit – guess what – Iran and Russia.
Six months to destroy Russia
A case can be made that the House of Saud’s low oil price strategy has been a slow motion Wahhabi hara-kiri from the start (which, by the way, is hardly a bad thing.)
The House of Saud budget has collapsed. Riyadh is financing an unwinnable, mightily expensive war on Yemen, financing and weaponizing all manner of Salafi-jihadists in Syria, and is spending fortunes to prop up al-Sisi in Egypt against any possible Daesh (Islamic State) and/or Muslim Brotherhood offensive. As if this were not enough, internally the succession is a royal mess, with King Salman’s 30-year-old warrior-in-chief, Mohammad bin Salman, stamping his toxic mix of arrogance and incompetence on a daily basis.
Predictably, Riyadh once again is following Washington’s orders.
The United States government is frantically trying to hold the oil price down to destroy the Russian economy, using their proxy Persian Gulf producers who are pumping all out. That amounts to no less than seven million barrels a day over the OPEC quota, according to Persian Gulf traders. The US government believes it can destroy the Russian economy – again – as if the clock had been turned back to 1985, when the global glut was 20 percent of the oil supply and the Soviet Union was bogged down in Afghanistan and internally bleeding to death.
Oil went down to $7.00 a barrel in 1985, and that low figure is where the US government is now trying to drive the price down. Yet today the global glut is less than three percent of the oil supply, not 20 percent as in 1985.
The surplus today is only 2.2 million barrels a day, according to Petroleum Intelligence Weekly. Iran will bring on initially around 600,000 barrels a day of new oil in 2016. That means later this year we will have a 2.8-million potential surplus.
The problem is, according to Persian Gulf traders, an annual oil depletion of seven million barrels a day, and that cannot be replaced with the collapse in drilling. What this means is that all surplus oil could be wiped out in the first or second quarters of 2016. By mid-2016, oil prices should start surging dramatically, even with additional oil from Iran.
So the US government strategy has now metastasized into trying to destroy the Russian economy before the oil price inevitably recovers. That would give the US government a window of opportunity spanning only the next six months.
How this could have been pulled off so far is a testament, once again, to the irresistible force of Wall Street manipulators using cash settlement; they are able to create a crash where there is hardly any surplus oil at all. Yet even as the Empire of Chaos frantically manipulates the oil price down, it may not go down fast enough to destroy the Russian economy.
Even Reuters was forced to admit briefly the oil surplus was less than two million barrels a day, and may even be alarmingly less than a million barrels a day before returning to the usual oil-at-an-all-time-low story. This information on the real oil surplus so far had been completely censored. It confronts head on the hegemonic US narrative of surpluses lasting forever and the imminent collapse of the Russian economy.
As for Saudi Arabia, it’s just a mere pawn in a much nastier game. Common sense now rules that it’s essentially a matter of Black Daesh (the fake “Caliphate”) and White Daesh (the House of Saud). After all, the ideological matrix is the same, beheadings included. It’s the next stage of the oil war that may well decide which Daesh will be the first to fall.
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.
*CHINA STOCKS HALTED FOR REST OF DAY AFTER CSI 300 TUMBLES 7%
Happy New Year…
Chinese traders are unhappy:
Circuit breaker may be triggering “herd effect” and intensifying panic, investors may accelerate selling after 1st trading halt as they seek liquidity: Galaxy Sec. strategist Sun Jianbo
“There seems to be considerable anxiety in the mkt with investors selling as a preventive measure,” Shenwan Hongyuan Group director Gerry Alfonso
Investor confidence is on “shaky ground” due to negative factors incl. sharp depreciation in yuan, oil price slump and overnight losses in overseas equity mkts: Central China Sec. strategist Zhang Gang
Threshold being hit too easily in China, adding “liquidity fears” in mkt: Catherine Cheung, Head of Investment Strategy & Portfolio Advisory at Citibank Global Consumer Banking
Crude crashes to a $32 Handle…
Gold just surged to $1100…
The entire Chinese stock market has been halted on half the trading days in 2016
The punishment will continue until The Fed unleashes QE4!!
* * *
*CHINA STOCK SLUMP TRIGGERS TRADING HALT AS CSI 300 FALLS 5%
US Equity markets are tumbling…
And USDJPY is in free-fall…
Someone just stepped into support the Offshore Yuan…
As we detailed earlier:
Following the collapse of offshore Yuan to 5 year lows and decompression to record spreads to onshore Yuan, The PBOC has stepped in and dramatically devalued the Yuan fix by 0.5% to 6.5646. This is the biggest devaluation since the August collapse. Offshore Yuan has erased what modest bounce gains it achieved intraday and is heading significantly lower once again. Dow futures are down 100 points on the news.
PBOC fixes Yuan at its weakest since March 2011… with the biggest devaluation since August
And Offshore Yuan collapses…
This all has a worrisome sense of deja vu all over again… We have seen this pattern of money flow chaos before… Outflows surge from China, send liquidity needs spiking, which bleeds over into Saudi stress (petrodollar?), causing unwinds in major equity markets (thanks to deleveraging of carry trades) in China and then US stocks…
Chinese stocks are opening down hard:
*SHANGHAI COMPOSITE INDEX FALLS 4.01%
*SHANGHAI COMPOSITE EXTENDS DROP TO 10% BELOW DECEMBER HIGH
*HANG SENG CHINA ENTERPRISES INDEX FALLS 3.03%
*CHINA CSI 300 INDEX FALLS 4.05%
Hold your breath. Dow futures plunged 100 points on the news…
Did you see what just happened in China? For the second time in four days, a massive stock market crash has caused an emergency shutdown of the markets in China.
On both Monday and Thursday, trading was suspended for 15 minutes when the CSI 300 fell 5 percent, and on both days the total decline very rapidly escalated to 7 percent once trading was reopened. Once a 7 percent drop happens, trading is automatically suspended for the rest of the day. I guess that is one way to keep the stock market from crashing – you just don’t let anyone trade. And of course the panic in China is causing other markets to go haywire as well. As I write this, the Nikkei is down 324 points and Hong Kong is down 572 points.
The amazing thing is that trading was only open in China for about 15 total minutes tonight. Here is how CNBC described what just happened…
China’s stocks were suspended from all trade on Thursday after the CSI300 tumbled more than 7 percent in early trade, triggering the market’s circuit breaker for a second time this week.
That drop-kicked stock markets across Asia, which were already wallowing after a weaker open amid concerns over China’s economic slowdown and its depreciating currency as well as falling oil prices.
On the mainland, the Shanghai Composite tumbled 7.32 percent by at the time of the halt, while the Shenzhen Composite plummeted 8.34 percent. The CSI300, the benchmark index against which China’s new circuit breakers are set, plunged 7.21 percent. If that index rises or falls 5 percent, the market halts all trade for 15 minutes. If it moves 7 percent, trading will be suspended for the rest of the day. In total Thursday, China shares only traded around 15 minutes.
How will European and U.S. markets respond to the chaos in Asia when they open?
That is a very good question. I think that everybody will be watching.
Already, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down about 500 points for the year. The financial crisis that began in the second half of 2015 is now accelerating as we enter 2016, and nobody is quite sure what is going to happen next.
One key to watch is what happens with the S&P 500.
2000 is kind of like a giant line in the sand on the S&P 500. On Wednesday we saw the market hover around that psychologically-important number, and there is a whole lot of resistance right there. If we break solidly through 2000 and start plunging toward 1900, that is going to break things wide open.
The primary reason for the stock market crash in China on Thursday was another stunning devaluation of the yuan. This explanation from Zero Hedge is very helpful…
Following the collapse of offshore Yuan to 5 year lows and decompression to record spreads to onshore Yuan, The PBOC has stepped in and dramatically devalued the Yuan fix by 0.5% to 6.5646. This is the biggest devaluation since the August collapse. Offshore Yuan has erased what modest bounce gains it achieved intraday and is heading significantly lower once again. Dow futures are down 100 points on the news.
PBOC fixes Yuan at its weakest since March 2011… with the biggest devaluation since August
A massive devaluation of the yuan was also one of the primary reasons for the market turmoil that we saw back in August. The Chinese are playing games with their currency, and this is causing havoc in the global marketplace.
Meanwhile, we have received some other very troubling news about the global economy over the past few days…
-The price of oil continues to collapse. As I write this, the price of U.S. oil is down to $33.26 a barrel. Those that follow my writing regularly already know that this is a really bad sign for the global economy.
-The Baltic Dry Index just hit another brand new all-time record low. Global trade is absolutely imploding, and this is having a devastating impact on China and other major exporting nations.
-U.S. manufacturing is contracting at the fastest pace that we have seen since the last recession. This is precisely what we would expect to see during the early stages of a new crisis.
-U.S. manufacturing imports are also contracting at the fastest pace that we have seen since the last recession. It appears that “the almighty U.S. consumer” is not going to save the global economy after all.
In 2015, trillions of dollars of stock market wealth was wiped out globally. Now this new global financial crisis is picking up speed, and many of the “experts” seem absolutely stunned by what is happening.
But most of my readers are not surprised. That is because I have been breaking down the signs that have been warning us of this new crisis in excruciating detail for months. The financial carnage that we have witnessed around the globe this week is simply a logical progression of what has already been happening.
To be honest, though, even I have been stunned by what has happened in China this week. I can’t say that I expected an emergency shutdown of the Chinese markets two times within the first four trading days of the year.
Panic and fear are beginning to grip the global marketplace, and once that starts to happen events become very difficult to predict.
Let us hope that things settle down soon, but I wouldn’t count on it.
As I have said before, 2016 is the year when everything changes, and we are going to see things take place over the next 12 months that are going to shock the world.
Mr. Trump, I am an American of Christian Arab background who grew up in Jesus’ home town of Nazareth.
I attended Catholic and Orthodox schools all my life. In fact, it was Lubbock Christian University in Texas that attracted me to immigrate to the United States.
Christmas has always been an important holiday for me, not only as a marker for my religion, but also as an opportunity to reflect on my life, as it’s been shaped by love and friendships.
This Christmas, Mr. Trump, I found that my reflection oddly involved you. You see, those friendships have been defined in many ways by the people you seemingly like to vilify: Muslims.
But I’m writing to tell you that the Muslims you’ve been portraying — the fears you’ve been stoking as you paint a religion with a disturbingly large brush — stand in far contrast to the Muslims I’ve been blessed to meet throughout my life.
So let me briefly tell you about the Muslims I know.
The Muslims I know showered my family with gifts and boxes of produce every Christmas—all to be sure that our family of nine children was well fed and happy.
The Muslims I know always told me “not to worry” as they (shopkeepers) bagged and handed me the items I needed, despite being short on cash.
The Muslims I know took off whatever they were wearing and handed it to me, should I have happened to tell them that I admired it.
The Muslims I know donated their time, money, and efforts to provide clothing to the needy and feed poor, Christian families.
The Muslims I know rushed to my rescue when I had car trouble, or simply needed a ride.
The Muslims I know said “follow me” whenever I asked them for directions, always choosing to show me the way.
The Muslims I know didn’t only call me a “sister”…they treated me like one.
Perhaps if you knew those Muslims, Mr. Trump, you would never judge more than a billion followers of a religion based solely on the actions of a few.
So as we begin yet another year, I’d like to challenge you to a resolution. Resolve to end these blanket generalizations, and instead, stop and think about the Muslims you personally know, the ones you have surely met through your countless business interactions, both in the Middle East and here at home.
Think about them as individuals, and let them be defined by their good deeds.
After all, that is what Christianity asks of us.
Amal David, Ph.D.
Dr. Amal David is Director of Community Outreach at Arab America
TransCanada, the Canadian company that had been planning to build and own its proposed Keystone XL Pipeline carrying Canada’s tar-sands oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries for export to Europe and elsewhere, released to the public, on Wednesday January 6th, two legal presentations against the United States, because U.S. President Barack Obama, through his Secretary of State John Kerry, on 6 November 2015, had said no to TransCanada’s proposed oil pipeline.
TransCanada’s basic legal argument contains many allegations, each one of which will be exceedingly difficult for the United States to defend successfully against; and all of which taken together provide TransCanada’s stockholders a reasonably high likelihood of ultimately winning their penalty claim, even perhaps all of the $15 billion that they are seeking against U.S. taxpayers for the American President’s having violated rights of TransCanada stockholders to profit, under the 1994 NAFTA trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada. This case could be a harbinger of many more to come if President Obama’s three mega trade deals become passed by Congress (TTIP, TPP, and TISA), each of which extends the same profitable potentials for corporations to sue the U.S. government.
First of all, the penalty case here will be brought outside the U.S. legal system, in an arbitration panel (much championed by the Obama Administration and by prior Administrations, including that of President Bill Clinton, who introduced this arbitration-system into his NAFTA trade agreement). This panel will consist probably of three arbitrators, none of whom needs to be a lawyer, in an Investor State Dispute Settlement proceeding under America’s NAFTA trade agreement with Canada, rather than in any U.S. court, and it will not be reviewable in, nor appealable to, any U.S. court, including even the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words: the penalty part of TransCanada’s case will exclude any type of democratic accountability — any way that the American people (who would be the persons that would be paying the fine via their taxes) can hold anyone accountable, at the ballot box or otherwise, for the loss, if a fine is imposed by the panel. The U.S. public would simply be forced to pay to the stockholders of the TransCanada Corporation whatever fine such a panel might determine. The American people elected Clinton, Obama, and the other Presidents, and the Congresses, which have subjected U.S. taxpayers to this system — called Investor State Dispute Settlement or ISDS — and future American leaders will have to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be.
The court case challenges whether the President’s turn-down of the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal was Constitutional. It is formally unconnected with the penalty case; but, if the ultimate decision in it turns out to be in favor of Trans-Canada, then the company might be able to increase the penalty in the penalty case. Indeed, the penalty case closes with, essentially, a warning, to this effect: “The Disputing Investors reserve the right to adjust the claimed damages during the course of the arbitration.” Obviously, if the President unConstitutionally blocked the Keystone XL, then that would be especially damning against the government.
Secondly, both legal presentations — the penalty case and the court case — cite chapter-and-verse of the statements by U.S. President Obama, and by his Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, in which they had argued that the Keystone XL pipeline will present little or no environmental harm, and will be beneficial for the U.S. economy. Furthermore, the penalty case (in its footnote 61) cites and quotes from Secretary of State Kerry’s 6 November 2015 press statement which explained why the President was turning down the proposed pipeline.
This is the passage that’s cited: “It’s absolutely true that the perception of U.S. leadership on climate change, the perception of what this President and this Administration have been doing, and the resolve that they have been showing over the course of the last number of years has been enormously important to the U.S. posture internationally” However, the key statement there (which TransCanada oddly failed to quote, since it’s their strongest evidence) was: “The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combatting climate change.” Kerry’s assertion there, that this — and not any of the issues that have legal bearing — was “the critical factor” in the decision, will add considerably to TransCanada’s chance of victory in the penalty case.
Thirdly, both actions cite a lengthy record of admissions by the Obama Administration that none of the issues that have legal bearing on the matter were pertinent in their decision. Here is how the penalty case summarizes this:
49. This, then, was the basis of the Administration’s reasoning: Keystone’s application should be denied so that the United States could show leadership on climate change by (i) appeasing those who held a view on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline that the Administration itself concluded on six different occasions was wholly unsubstantiated; and (ii) making a “tough choice” to deny Keystone a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, even though denying the permit would, based on the Administration’s own analysis, have no beneficial impact on the environment. In short, the decision elevated perceptions over reality, which is the hallmark of a decision tainted by politics.
Unfortunately, the following matters will have no bearing on the ultimate determination by either the arbitration panel in the penalty case, or the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (which will be the first court to hear the Constitutional case):
All of the Environmental Impact Statements that the State Department commissioned to be done on the proposed pipeline, and especially the ones that were done under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (a strong behind-the-scenes supporter of the Pipeline), were profoundly corrupt and were done by teams that included not a single climatologist but were instead wholly comprised of companies that were chosen by TransCanada itself, and that will potentially lose business if anything is reported that would be unfavorable to the U.S. government’s approval of Keystone XL. In other words: they were rigged.
Furthermore, Steve Horn, of the DeSmogBlog, headlined 5 February 2015, at Huffington Post, “Digging Into TransCanada’s Lobbying History,” and he reported that: “In addition to the $250,000 paid to Paul Elliott — TransCanada’s infamous in-house lobbyist and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s national deputy campaign manager during her 2008 run for president — three outside firms lobbied on TransCanada’s behalf to promote KXL.” One of those was Bryan Cave. And, “The two Bryan Cave lobbyists on the KXL file are Brandon Pollak and David Russell. Pollak formerly served as Deputy National Director of Grassroots Fundraising for John Kerry’s 2004 run for president. Kerry now serves as the head of the U.S. Department of State, the body assigned to make the final call on KXL.” So, the deeper one dug, the more the smell came to resemble that of tar-sands sludge itself.
The likeliest reason why Obama turned down Keystone XL is that he wants Hillary Clinton to become President to finish everything that he started. If he had accepted XL, he would have lost all chance of that happening, unless one of the Republican contenders wins the Presidency.
This article was originally published in February 2014
In two recent articles we explained the hows and whys of gold price manipulation. The manipulations are becoming more and more blatant. On February 6 the prices of gold and stock market futures were simultaneously manipulated.
On several recent occasions gold has attempted to push through the $1,270 per ounce price. If the gold price rises beyond this level, it would trigger a flood of short-covering by the hedge funds who are “piggy-backing” on the bullion banks’ manipulation of gold. The purchases by the hedge funds in order to cover their short positions would drive the gold price higher.
With pressure being exerted by tight supplies of physical gold bars available for delivery to China, the Fed is growing more desperate to keep a lid on the price of gold. The recent large decline in the stock market threatened the Fed’s policy of taking pressure off the dollar by cutting back bond purchases and reducing the amount of debt monetization.
Thursday, February 6, provided a clear picture of how the Fed protects its policy by manipulating the gold and stock markets. Gold started to move higher the night before as the Asian markets opened for trading. Gold rose steadily from $1254 up to a high of $1267 per ounce right after the Comex opened (8:20 a.m. NY time). The spike up at the open of the Comex reflected a rush of short-covering, and the stock market futures looked like they were about to turn negative on the day. However, starting at 8:50 a.m., here’s what happened with Comex futures and S&P 500 stock futures:
[1]
At 8:50 a.m. NY time (the graph time-scale is Denver time), 3,225 contracts hit the Comex floor. During the course of the previous 14 hours and 50 minutes of trading, about 76,000 total April contracts had traded (Globex computer system + Comex floor), less than an average of 85 contracts per minute. The 3,225 futures contracts sold in one minute caused a $15 dollar decline in the price of gold. At the same time, the stock market futures mysteriously spiked higher:
[2]
As you can see from the graphs, gold was forced lower while the stock market futures were forced higher. There was no apparent news or market events that would have triggered this type of reaction in either the gold or stock market. If anything, the trade deficit report, which showed a higher than expected trade deficit for December, should have been mildly bullish for gold and bearish for the stock market. Furthermore, at the same time that gold was being forced lower on the Comex, the U.S. dollar index experienced a sharp drop in price and traded below the 81 level of support. The fall in the dollar is normally bullish for gold.
The economy is getting weaker. Fed policy is obviously failing despite recent official pronouncements that the economy is improving and that Bernanke’s monetary policies succeeded. A just published study by Jing Cynthia Wu and Fan Dora Zia concludes that the the positive impact of the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing is so slight as to be insignificant. The multi-trillion dollar expansion in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet lowered the unemployment rate by little more than two-tenths of one percent, raised the industrial production index by 2 percent, and brought about a mere 34,000 housing starts. http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~faxia/pdfs/JMP.pdf[3]
The renewal of the battle over the debt ceiling limit is bullish for gold and bearish for stocks. However, with the ongoing manipulation of the gold price and stock averages via gold and stock market futures, the normal workings of markets that establish true values are disrupted.
A rising problem for the manipulators is that the West is running low on gold available for delivery to China and other Asian buyers. In January China took delivery of a record amount of gold. China has been closed since last Friday in observance of the Chinese New Year. As China resumes purchases, default on delivery moves closer.
One way for the Fed and bullion banks to hold off defaulting on Chinese purchases is to coerce holders of gold futures contracts to settle in cash, not in delivery of gold, by driving down the price during heavy Comex delivery periods. This is what likely occurred on Feb. 6 in addition to the Fed’s routine price maintenance of gold.
As of Thurday’s (Feb. 6) Comex report for Wednesday’s (Feb. 5) close, there were about 616,000 ounces of gold available to be delivered from Comex vaults for February contracts totaling slightly more than 400,000 ounces, of which delivery notices for 100,000 ounces were given last Wednesday night. If the holders of the other 300,000 contracts opt to take delivery instead of cash settlement, February contracts would absorb two-thirds of Comex gold available for delivery.
The Comex gold inventory has been a big source of gold shipments from the West to the East, resulting in a decline of the Comex gold inventory by over 4 million ounces–113 tonnes–during the course of 2013. We know from reports from Swiss bar refiners that the 100 ounce Comex gold bars are being received by these refiners and recast into the kilo bars that the Chinese prefer and shipped to Hong Kong. With the amount of physical gold in Comex vaults rapidly being removed, the Fed/bullion banks use market ambush tactics such as those we describe above to augment and conserve the supply of gold available for delivery.
Readers have asked if gold can continue to be shorted on the Comex once no gold is left for delivery. From what we have seen–the fixing of the LIBOR rate, the London gold price, foreign exchange rates, the price of bonds and the manipulation of gold and stock market futures prices–we don’t know what the limit is to the ability of the Fed, the Treasury, the Plunge Protection Team, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and the banks to manipulate the markets.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy. Dave Kranzler traded high yield bonds for Bankers Trust for a decade. As a co-founder and principal of Golden Returns Capital LLC, he manages the Precious Metals Opportunity Fund.
From economic turmoil to social dissolution and cultural chaos, it can no longer be denied that the once-opulent West is on the brink of collapse.
In his new book, respected economist, author and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, explores the roots of this crisis and where we are going from here.
This is the GRTV Feature Interview with your host, James Corbett, and our special guest, Paul Craig Roberts.
ocate of a federal system for Libya and frequently uses his power to open or close oil ports, shutting off oil exports — and therefore salaries — when he disagrees with either government.
